Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Tendring Hundred Water and Gas Bill [Lords.],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Down (West Down Division), in the room of DANIEL MARTIN WILSON, Esquire, K. C. (Recorder of Belfast).—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: 1
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say when His Majesty's Government propose to allow the Egyptian Assembly to meet, or, alternatively, to allow a General Election to be held; and when it is expected that a decision as to the policy for the future government of Egypt will be arrived at and submitted to Parliament?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): It rests with the Egyptian Government to decide when to summon the Assembly or to hold a General Election. The present Ministry, on taking office, expressed their intention of doing both after the conclusion of negotiations with His Majesty's Government. Inasmuch as the Delegation which is to discuss the terms of settlement with His Majesty's
Government has not yet left Egypt, it would obviously be premature to attempt at this stage to say how long their labours will last or when they will be ended.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the Commander-in-Chief in Egypt proposed to hold an election, at any rate, under the last Government? Was not a practical agreement come to by Lord Milner, and why are the Government not proceeding on that basis?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The last part of the question is very argumentative. As to the first part, I should require notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (CONSORTIUM).

Mr. KENYON: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the official Japanese statement to the effect that there ought to be a political as well as a financial consortium of the Powers with regard to China; whether any such proposal has actually been put forward; and, if so, what is its exact significance?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have never heard of such a suggestion being made.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE AND TURKEY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to continue to permit Greek warships and troopships to use the waters of the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmora, and the Bosphorus for operations against the Turkish armies, in view of the neutralisation of those waters and the reply of Greece to the recent Allied representations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The status of the Straits was explained by the Leader of the House on the 21st instant, and is not affected by the Greek reply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Having sent a letter to the Greek Government saying that we would give no further support in the event of an unfavourable reply, are we not going against the spirit of that letter in allowing them to use these neutral waters for their operations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information with reference to the situation on the Ismid Peninsula?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The situation in the Ismid Peninsula is obscure, but according to information received this morning the town of Ismid was evacuated by the Greek forces on the evening of 27th June. It is further reported that the town is in flames and that great panic prevails in the district. Numbers of Armenians and neutral Turks are fleeing towards Constantinople. Having regard to the general confusion, there appears to be considerable danger of massacres, and Mr. Rattigan, in concurrence with the Allied High Commissioners, is taking all possible steps to prevent such outrages by one side or the other.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether there are any British ships in the vicinity to protect British interests on the Peninsula? Are there any troops there?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that British interests are not in any danger. Questions relating to naval or military affairs should be addressed to the Departments concerned.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has Mr. Rattigan any British troops at his disposal?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: He is acting with the Allied Commissioners in Constantinople, and has no concern, as such, with military policy.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then none of our troops are likely to be involved in the next few days?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think that arises out of the question?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PRIZE MONEY.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 6.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether officers and men of the Royal Navy or Royal Naval Reserve who served
in defensively armed merchant ships may count such service as from 2nd August, 1914 for the payment of prize money?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): Service in defensively armed merchant ships does not qualify for prize money, the award of which is limited to those who served in His Majesty's ships of war, and who could, therefore, have had an opportunity of participating in captures resulting in prize proceeds payable to the Prize Fund.

Viscount CURZON: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it very hard that these men, who were constantly under fire from hostile submarines, quite as much as the men in the Grand Fleet, should be debarred from participating?

Mr. AMERY: The point, after all, is that they were not able to capture prizes. They were armed in case they were there attacked.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

LIGHTHOUSES, S. W. COAST (PROTECTION).

Lieut.- Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 6.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will take immediate steps to afford the Trinity House Brethren the necessary protection for their lighthouse staff on the South-West coast of Ireland to enable them to carry out their highly important duties without molestation by Sinn Fein rebels?

Mr. AMERY: The question has been fully considered, but I regret that the Admiralty are not in a position to supply this protection.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Why is it not possible to garrison at least the Fastnett Lighthouse, which is the key of the Atlantic, as it is necessary that that lighthouse should be kept without any fear of having its service interrupted?

Mr. AMERY: I admit that it is very desirable that that lighthouse should be protected. The actual lighting service has not been interfered with. I gather that the only service which has suffered is the fog signal service, owing to the stealing of explosives, but I am afraid that the Admiralty have not seen their way to make that protection a duty of the Navy.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is not the fog signal service actually carried out at the Fastnet Light itself? If that be the case, considering that the Fastnet is some miles from land, could not the Admiralty see that it is properly protected and looked after?

Mr. AMERY: I will certainly discuss it further, but the Admiralty did go into the question very fully, and came to the conclusion that the protection was not a duty which they could undertake.

FOOD TRANSPORT, WESTERN DONEGAL.

Mr. LAWSON: 34.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what means of transport are at present in use for the supply of foodstuffs to Western Donegal?

The SOLICITOR- GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. T. W. Brown): The suspension of certain sailings between Londonderry and Donegal was explained by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) on 20th June. I have no evidence of distress in any part of Donegal, but if there is a shortage of any class of foodstuff, the inhabitants have the remedy in their own hands, since the normal method of transport is by road and rail, and this method can be restored with the good-will of the inhabitants at any time.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he is aware—

Mr. SPEAKER: No—we must proceed.

PROPOSED CONFERENCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether a reply to his letter to the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. de Valera) has been received and what is the nature of this reply?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has received a telegram, which I shall read to the House:
SIR,—I have received your letter. I am in consultation with such of the principal representatives of our nation as are available. We most earnestly desire to help in bringing about a lasting peace between the peoples of these two islands, but see no avenue by which it can be reached if you deny Ireland's essential unity and set aside the principle of national self-determination. Before replying more fully to your letter I
am seeking a conference with certain representatives of the political minority in this country.
(Signed) EAMON DE VALERA,
Mansion House, Dublin.
28th June, 1921.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to restrain his colleagues and followers—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LABOUR CORPS (SERGEANT WATERSWORTH).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour whether Sergeant Edward Watersworth, No. 694,138, Labour Corps, served from 1914 to 1918, and again enlisted in May, 1919, and was discharged in December, 1919; whether he applied for a grant of £100 for pig and poultry farming, and was recommended by the doctor of the Lancashire tuberculosis dispensary and passed by an inspector of agriculture as a fit and proper person for the grant, but has been refused on the ground of his second enlistment; and whether, in all these cases, a man's War service will be rendered null and void for a civil liabilities grant because of post-War service of a few months' duration?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): It is the case that an application was received from Sergeant Watersworth and was refused. The reason for refusal was that his application was not made within 12 months from the date of his demobilisation from War service. A man's War service is not rendered null and void for a civil liabilities grant because of post-War service of a few months' duration, provided his application is made within 12 months from the date of his original discharge.

Mr. YOUNG: Would it be possible for this man to make an application after his first demobilisation?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think so. I have no discretion in the matter, but let my hon. Friend put that proposition to me.

BUILDING TRADES.

Viscount CURZON: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men
have now applied under the Government scheme for employment in the building trades; how many are now employed; what is the attitude of the trade unions concerned; and whether he is satisfied that all Government Departments are assisting the scheme to the utmost?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is impossible at the moment for me to give more detailed figures than I gave to my Noble and gallant Friend last week, but he will be glad to hear that it has been decided that as from 1st September next contracts for the Government on which bricklayers, plasterers, slaters and tilers are employed will be let, save in exceptional circumstances, only on condition that the contractor is employing ex-service men in accordance with the conditions of the scheme. Furthermore, every effort is being made by all the Government Departments concerned to ensure that a proper proportion of ex-service men are taken on and employed on existing contracts. The attitude of the trade unions concerned in the majority of cases is unfriendly.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: Is there any reason why this new scheme could not come into force before the 1st September?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I thought myself that it was a rather long delay, but there are difficulties in the way.

Viscount CURZON: May we hope for better things as far as ex-service men are concerned under this scheme in future?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Both my hon. Friend and myself hope that we may be able to get ahead.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (POST OFFICE).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: 64.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in considering applications for vacancies in the Post Office ex-service men will have priority of consideration; and whether there is any intention of reinstating conscientious objectors or considering their claims for vacancies until all suitable applicants among men who fought for their country have been appointed?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): Vacancies on certain grades of the Poet Office staff are filled by appointments from lower grades in the Post Office.
Subject to this limitation the reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part is in the negative. Eighty-nine thousand two hundred and fifty-five ex-service men are now employed in the Post Office.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it quite clear from the answer that no conscientious objectors will be reinstated at all until all the ex-service men have been reinstated?

Mr. PEASE: I can give the Noble Lord a statement in regard to the men in the Post Office. There are 89,255 ex-service men employed in the Post Office. Certain conscientious objectors have been reinstated, and I think that reply is applicable to other Departments of the State. The whole of the conscientious objectors previously employed in the Post Office have been either reinstated or dismissed, and the further question of reinstatement does not arise at the present time at all.

Sir J. HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that dismissed conscientious objectors will on no account be reinstated—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—until the ex-service men have been attended to?

Mr. PEASE: Certainly I will.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House the reason why, under any circumstances, conscientious objectors are employed by the Government?

Mr. PEASE: I could deal with that question at some length, but I may say that the total number of conscientious objectors in the Post Office was 256. They were divided into several categories: men who secured exemption (whether absolute or conditional) from tribunals, and were allowed to remain on Post Office duty; also men who secured exemption from tribunals, but were required to take up work of national importance outside the Post Office as a condition of exemption. This includes, among others, men who were required to join the Friend's Ambulance Unit. There are many other categories and I will send my hon. Friend a list.

Mr. DAVISON: Is there any reason why these men should not think for themselves?

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (SETTLEMENT).

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour what number of industrial disputes involving changes of wages have been satisfactorily settled by the Ministry without stoppage of work during the three months ending 31st May; what numbers of men and women employed were involved; and in what cases were reductions of wages involved in the settlement?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend will recognise that it is impracticable to give a precise statistical statement on this matter because the intervention of the Ministry vares considerably from unobtrusive advice to formal intervention, and it is very frequently impossible to say exactly how far the less formal action was directly responsible for a settlement in any particular case. The less formal cases are, of course, much more numerous, hut of the disputes in which the Department has formally intervened there are 26 instances of differing importance in which my Department intervened in the period mentioned. Seventeen of these cases were settled without a stoppage of work. Altogether about 500,000 workpeople were concerned, and in the majority of cases reductions of wages were involved. I am, of course, not referring to the numerous cases where settlements were effected through machinery for negotiation which my Department have helped to establish, such as joint industrial councils and conciliation boards.

COST OF LIVING INDEX.

Mr. HURD: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour if the committee representing the Labour party and its associates have responded to his invitation to submit for investigation the statistical and other bases of their report discrediting the official cost-of-living figure; and if he is inviting independent statistical discreditors of the figure, such as Miss Eleanor Rathbone, Dr. A. L. Bowley, and the London School of Economics, to submit their criticisms for similar investigation?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The particulars asked for have not yet been received, but we have been informed that details of the investigation undertaken by the Joint Committee referred to will be contained in a Report, publication of which is ex-
pected within a few days. The Ministry; of Labour is, I think, already sufficiently familiar with the details of such reasoned criticisms as have appeared from other sources.

Mr. HURD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it a serious thing to adhere to a figure which is regarded as of no value by both employers and employés? Can he point to any authoritative person who has any faith in these figures outside the persons who are responsible for them?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am aware of the fact that there are two parties. One says that the figures are far too high. The other says that they are far too low. I am disposed to believe that the truth lies in the middle.

Mr. HURD: If the right hon. Gentle man calls for detailed information from one side, why does he not call for detailed information from the other as well?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We have carefully studied Miss Rathbone and Dr. Bowley's reports.

Mr. G. EDWARDS: Are not the actual figures of the cost of living 20 per cent. higher than the Government figures?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I think that that question affords evidence of the criticism, to which I have referred. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hurd) will note that the hon. Gentleman opposite says that the figures should be 20 per cent. higher.

Mr. HURD: My point is that you are asking for information from one set of discreditors and not from the other.

Lieut.- Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in the "Labour Gazette" for June fresh butter was quoted at 2s. 2½d. per pound, whereas large stores and multiple store shops having branches all over the United Kingdom were freely advertising the commodity at 1s. 8d to 1s. 10d. per pound on the 1st day of June, and that as a result of this inflation of price the average percentage increase compared with July, 1914, is stated to be 83 per cent. of this commodity, whereas if the true price was stated, namely, 1s. 8d. to 1s. 10d. per pound, the average percentage increase would have been 39 per cent. above that of July, 1914; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding that
the "Labour Gazette" of May in a footnote states that since the date to which the returns relate there have been considerable reductions in the prices of some articles, especially bacon, the "Labour Gazette" of June quotes bacon, streaky, at 2s. 2¾d. per pound., a reduction of only 1¾d. per pound, although in May this commodity was easily procurable at prices ranging from 1s. 8d. per pound; and whether, in view of these inaccuracies, steps can be taken to compile a more accurate table, in view of the far-reaching importance of the figures compiled from this data?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The prices quoted in the "Labour Gazette" are averages for the United Kingdom as a whole, based on information obtained from retailers in all the larger towns and in over 500 smaller places. I am aware that in some cases butter and bacon could be purchased, on 1st June, at the prices suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, but in many cases the prices were substantially higher, and the general averages, as computed from all the returns received, were as stated in the "Labour Gazette." As regards the alternative calculation made by my hon. and gallant Friend, I would point out that the minimum prices charged by certain large multiple stores at the present time cannot properly be compared with the general average of prices at July, 1914. Such calculations can only appropriately be made on the basis of comparable figures for the two dates, as is done in the "Labour Gazette."

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Would the right hon. Gentleman set up a Committee to decide this point? In view of these bloated prices for butter and bacon, cannot something be published more nearly approaching the real price? Every month the same bloated prices are published.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have given an answer to that in anticipation in my reply to another hon. Member (Mr. Hurd).

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

LOCAL COMMITTEES' EXPENSES.

Major Sir KEITH FRASER: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the annual
cost to the State of the fees and expenses paid to labour and trade union representatives for attendance at Unemployment Committees and other Committees in connection with the Unemployment Exchanges; and if, in the interests of economy, he will take steps to discontinue this outlay, especially having regard to the fact that representatives of the trade unions in many cases utilise their position to induce persons interviewed to join trade unions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No fees are paid to chairmen or members of Local Employment Committees of the Employment Department of the Ministry of Labour. The total cost for all members of travelling expenses and allowances for subsistence and lost time for the year ended 31st March, 1921, was £18,791, but the records of the Department do not show what proportion of this total was paid to workpeople's representatives. At the present time the interviewing of applicants occurs in the main at meetings of rota Sub-committees in pursuance of their statutory function of considering applications to benefit under Section 3 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, and the examination of these claims by the rota Committees has undoubtedly led to a very great saving of public funds. I have no reason to believe that representatives of trade unions take advantage of their position in the manner suggested in the question.

INSURANCE REGULATIONS.

Mr. F. HALL: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Insurance Regulations at present in force are of a temporary character; and, if so, whether the new Regulations will be placed before Parliament during this Session?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Unemployment Insurance Regulations at present in force are provisional in the sense that I intend, after having obtained observations in response to invitations issued to representative bodies of employers and employed persons, to issue combined Regulations of a permanent character. I hope to be able to do this shortly, but I cannot say whether it will be practicable during the present Session.

Sir W. de FRECE: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the uncertainty which seems to exist re-
garding aspects of the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, he will ensure that detailed instruction thereon is given to all Employment Exchanges, so that delay may be avoided?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Employment Exchanges are in possession of detailed instructions regarding the procedure to be followed. These instructions are designed to avoid delay as far as possible, and, at the same time, to provide the necessary safeguards. Inquiries into a claimant's eligibility for benefit sometimes entail unavoidable delay.

UNEMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (HOLIDAYS).

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe): 18.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the lack of uniformity in the decisions of adjoining employment exchanges on the question of holidays; that cases have occurred where workers normally employed in the same mill or workshop have been treated differently with respect to their unemployment benefit through being registered at different exchanges.; that, for instance, the number of days deducted for the Easter and Whitsun holidays varied at the Bacup and Rawtenstall exchanges, although a large number of those registered at these two exchanges are normally employed at Waterfoot, and therefore, when employed, have the like holidays; and whether steps can be taken to secure uniformity of practice in these respects?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware that there has been any lack of uniformity in the decisions of adjoining employment exchanges on the question of holidays. I am prepared to make inquiries into any specific cases which my hon. Friend will bring to my notice.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the case mentioned in the question?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Colonel NEWMAN: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the Regulations that are being laid down by employment exchanges as to the terms on which women may be engaged for domestic service; whether at an exchange in the Edgware Road, W., the conditions are that the
salary shall be equivalent to the trade union rate for any other industry and that adequate facilities shall be given for the employé to have her friends at her place of work; and whether unemployment donation is granted if a situation cannot be found for those on the register under these conditions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of any Regulations having been issued by employment exchanges with regard to terms and conditions of employment for adult women in domestic service. My hon. and gallant Friend may, however, be referring to the action of Juvenile Advisory Committees, who before advising a boy or girl to take up a particular place require to be assured that the conditions offered are satisfactory. The situation suggested in the latter part of the question has not arisen, as there is a greater number of vacancies than of suitable applicants Should, however, a case arise of a girl refusing an offer of suitable employment the question as to eligibility for benefit would be dealt with in accordance with the usual procedure.

Colonel NEWMAN: The Advisory Committees have laid down these impossible conditions, but cannot they be revised by the Ministry or by anyone else?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly. They laid down conditions with regard to boys and girls, many of whom are seeking service for the first time. In any case the authorities will have to be satisfied that the persons refused suitable employment before unemployment benefit can be paid.

Colonel NEWMAN: May I send my right hon. Friend a copy of the statement on which I based my question?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, certainly.

BANK HOLIDAY, BELFAST.

Mr. DEVLIN: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the attitude of the local Labour Ministry in Belfast in regard to the payment of unemployment donation last week; whether he is aware that large numbers of unemployed workers, who, for the convenience of the local Ministry, have been signing up at the mills and factories in which they were formerly employed, were informed by the local authorities that, as Wednesday, 22ndJune, the day of the opening of the Parliament
of Northern Ireland, was a bank holiday, no unemployment donation was payable for that day; whether they were also informed that, as the failure to sign up on Wednesday broke the continuity of the week, no donation would be payable for the two preceding days, Monday and Tuesday; and whether, seeing that this decision means the loss of three days' unemployment grant to many hundreds of workers, he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The facts are. I understand, generally as stated by my hon. Friend. The Umpire, who is the final authority, has decided that workpeople on short time are in general not entitled to benefit for holidays. In this case the decision to declare the day of the opening of the Northern Parliament a bank holiday affected the continuity rule; and, in short, may have had the result of bringing about, as my hon. Friend says, a loss of three days' unemployment benefit. Now, I must not under any circumstances even seem to prejudge the view of the Umpire. But if my hon. Friend will give me particulars, I will arrange for a test case to be submitted to the Umpire, in order that he may decide whether the holiday, which in this case affected the continuity rule, is a customary holiday within the meaning of his previous decision.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state why these workers should be victimised because the Ulster Parliament was opened?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sorry my hon. Friend reads that into it. He has really no right to do so, if I may say so with great respect. This was Bank Holiday, the place was closed, and the men could not come and sign. Therefore the continuity rule was broken in the ordinary course, but the decision had nothing to do with the Ulster Parliament. I am going to submit a case—without prejudging it by expressing any view—to the umpire, to see whether or not it will be held that this was a customary holiday or otherwise.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this was not a customary holiday at all, but a holiday created for a special purpose, that special purpose being to open the Ulster Parlia-
ment, and will he say why should these workers of Belfast suffer because the State decides to have a special Bank Holiday on a specific day?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend must realise that I am trying to help him.

Mr. DEVLIN: Help Carson's followers—not me!

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am going to give the umpire an opportunity of saying whether or not this was a customary holiday in accordance with the previous decision.

CHILDREN (HEALTH).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 29.
asked the Minister of Health the nature of his latest reports indicating the present state of the health of the children in those districts where unemployment is most pronounced?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I have received no special reports indicating that the health of children is suffering in districts where unemployment is pronounced.

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe): Does the right hon. Gentleman believe the policy of the Government in reducing unemployment benefit will be conducive to improvement in the health of children in those districts?

Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the education authorities are cutting down their obligations in regard to the feeding of children?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not the Minister to whom those questions should be addressed.

GROCERY TRADE BOARD.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make any statement to the House respecting the date when the rates of wages fixed by the Grocery Trade Board will come into operation?

Mr. T. THOMSON: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour on what date he proposes to make operative the rates of wages recently agreed by the Grocery Provision Trade Board?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I had expected to have been able to give my decision last week. I hope to do so within the next day or so.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT STAFFS AND OFFICES.

BRISTOL EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE.

Mr. INSKIP: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour what salary the divisional controller of the Employment Exchange in the Bristol area is paid, including war bonus; and whether any increase has been made within the last six months or is in contemplation?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and learned Friend no doubt refers to the divisional controller for the Southwestern Division of the country who is responsible for the work of all the local offices of the Employment and Insurance Department of the Ministry in the counties of Gloucester, Wilts, Hants, Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall and the Isle of Wight. The salaries of all the nine divisional controllers in Great Britain have, during the last year, been raised to £1,000 a year (exclusive of bonus) in consideration of the great increase of work and responsibility resulting from the extension of Unemployment Insurance. Prior to 1st July, 1920, such officers received £850–£950 a year exclusive of bonus. No further increase is contemplated.

Mr. INSKIP: Is it a fact that with the War bonus the divisional controller of each of these areas receives something over £1,600 a year, and that from the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman this salary and bonus were increased, although the duties had not increased?

Dr. MACNAMARA: In this particular case the salary with bonus is £1,690. Let me add that this gentleman supervises an area of 10,900 square miles. He has 207 Employment Exchanges in his care, and 728,065 insured persons. I desire to pay the most sincere tribute to the value of his services to the public.

Mr. INSKIP: Is it the fact that this gentleman has not been trained in industrial affairs at all, and that he has been trained in other capacities, with experience quite outside industrial affairs?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That I cannot say. If my hon. and learned Friend will see the work that this officer supervises and note the enormous volume of it, he will agree that I am entitled to a first-rate man, and that this gentleman is.

Sir C. YATE: How many applicants were there for this post?

Dr. MACNAMARA: This is not a new appointment. It has been held for some considerable time. If the hon. and gallant Member wants me to look up the archives, I will do so.

Mr. INSKIP: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour what salary, including war bonus, is paid to women clerks of the ages respectively of 18 and 19 in the Bristol Employment Exchange; and whether the women clerks in question are required to have any special training or education beyond that of the ordinary school curriculum?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There are two classes of women clerks in the Bristol Exchange at present—permanent and temporary Permanent women clerks, whose commencing salary is £52 a year up to the age of 18 and £75 at 18, are obtained by open competitive examination conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners, and the competition is keen. The bonus at present payable on the salaries of £52 and £75 is £85 16s. and £123 15s. per annum respectively. The rate of pay for temporary women clerks between the ages of 18 and 21, engaged on routine clerical duties in the Bristol Employment Exchange, is 43s. inclusive for a week of 44 hours. The qualifications required are clerical ability together with aptitude to deal promptly and courteously with the miscellaneous inquiries received.

Mr. INSKIP: Is it a fact that women clerks of 18 and 19 years of age receive from £198 to £212 a year for doing the ordinary work which a girl who leaves the elementary school is able to do? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a salary of £212 is too much for an unmarried girl of 18 years?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have given my hon. and learned Friend the fixed salaries, with the bonuses which were added by the Treasury National Whitley Council. With regard to these girls, if my hon. and learned Friend will do me the favour of
visiting the Victoria Street Employment Exchange, Bristol, he will, I feel sure, come here and pay a tribute to the staff's patience in a difficult task.

Colonel ASHLEY: Do they, as a matter of fact, find any jobs for the unemployed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; I could give my hon. and gallant Friend a return. Even during these times of grave industrial depression they have found something like 750,000 places for the unemployed throughout the country during the last twelve months.

Mr. INSKIP: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for Adjournment to-night.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is it not the case that these questions are mostly asked by people with £5,000 a year?

BOYS, WAGES.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is pledged to pay till September more than 21s. a week to boys under 15 years of age; and whether, in the event of the Government being thus committed, he will, taking the heavy burden of taxation into consideration, reconsider the decision to pay 18s. a week subsequently, especially in view of the wages ruling in private enterprise?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): There is no such general pledge as that referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. The current remuneration of a boy whose basic wage is 8s. a week would be 21st 3d. a week, and it is estimated that the reduction of bonus on the 1st September next will reduce the total remuneration to about 18s. a week. The bonus payable to these boys is fixed in accordance with the general scheme of Civil Service bonus, and on this subject I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to a question put on the 28th instant by the hon. and gallant Member for the Henley Division of Oxfordshire (Captain B. Terrell), in which I state that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to take an early opportunity of making a statement on the question of Civil Service bonus.

Colonel ASHLEY: May we take it, from the last sentence of the reply of the hon. Gentleman, that there is an intention of reducing this very high wage paid in certain Government Departments after 1st September next?

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many sons of profiteers, who have never done a day's work in their lives, who get 24s. a week pocket-money?

HOME OFFICE (PRISONS DEPARTMENT).

Mr. HOGGE: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the office of surveyor in the prisons department is amongst the list of offices scheduled by the Treasury in the Minute issued in May, 1886, as an office which entitles the holder thereof to an addition of seven years for professional qualifications?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): Section 4 of the Superannuation Act of 1859, whereby the addition of years for professional qualifications could be granted, was repealed by Section 5 of the Superannuation Act of 1914, and the office of Surveyor of Prisons will no longer carry with it this privilege.

Mr. HOGGE: 76.
asked the Home Secretary what sort of professional qualifications are needed for the office of inspector of prisons and surveyor in the prisons department, respectively; and whether a corporate member of the Institute of Civil Engineers in London is held to possess the profesional qualifications required by the Treasury Minute of May, 1886, for either or both offices?

Mr. SHORTT: The office of inspector of prisons is usually filled by the promotion of a Governor who has had the necessary training, and who is acquainted with the nature of the duties to be performed. The office of surveyor is filled by a person who has the necessary professional qualifications for such a post. Membership of the Institute of Civil Engineers would carry weight in making the selection for the post of surveyor, but not for that of inspector.

NATIONAL GALLERY (ATTENDANTS).

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 79.
asked the Home Secretary whether the patrol staff
of the National Gallery has been reduced from 19 to 14; if so, how many of the 14 men who have been retained are post-War pensioners in receipt of pensions from police funds of £3 3s. a week and upwards; and whether, in view of the fact that the pre-War pensioners are being discharged, he would be prepared to issue instructions that the services of men in receipt of the larger pensions should be dispensed with first when a reduction of staff is being made?

Mr. SHORTT: The appointment of the attendants rests with the trustees, and I have no authority to issue any instructions in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

GRANTS (PRIVATE BUILDERS).

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 23.
asked the Minister of Health what amount has actually been paid over in grants to private builders of houses on 31st May; what number of houses have been promised by private builders with the aid of the subsidy; and approximately what number of houses does the Ministry estimate will then be needed to overtake the present scarcity in housing accommodation?

Sir A. MOND: Up to 31st May the sum of £3,123,000 has been paid in grants to private builders in respect of 14,515 houses completed in England and Wales. Proposals for the erection of 16,349 further houses involving grants amounting to £4,369,000 have been approved by local authorities subject to the Housing Bill, at present before Parliament, becoming law. I have no doubt that a considerable number of additional houses will be built by private builders under the subsidy scheme, besides those being built by the local authorities, but I cannot at present say how far the shortage will be overtaken

SLUM AREAS, LONDON.

Mr. GILBERT: 31.
asked the Minister of Health how many housing schemes dealing with slum areas have been submitted to his Department by the London County Council since 1918; the names of such schemes and what decision his Department has given on the same, and if any schemes are at present before his Department waiting a decision; and, if so, what are the names of the schemes and how many existing dwellings do they refer to?

Sir A. MOND: Three schemes dealing with slum areas have been submitted to my Department by the London County Council since 1918. These schemes relate respectively to the Brady Street area, comprising 310 dwellings; to the Bell Lane and Ellen Street area, comprising 360 dwellings, and to the Ware Street area, comprising 313 dwellings. No decision has yet been given in regard to these schemes. Some important questions of policy are involved, and I have recently discussed the whole matter with the London County Council.

OVERCROWDING, MIDDLESBROUGH.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 32.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the state of overcrowding still existing in the county borough of Middlesbrough, and that despite a shortage of over 3,000 dwelling houses in 1919 less than 400 have been completed; and, as provision has so far only been made for 700 houses in all, will he make it known that when the local authority applies for permission to construct a further number his sanction will not be withheld, if he is satisfied that a state of overcrowding exists?

Sir A. MOND: I am aware that the housing position in Middlesbrough, as in other towns, is not satisfactory, and I can only say that its needs, like those of other towns, will have to be considered in relation to the financial burden which the present housing scheme places upon the taxpayers of the country.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ill-health of this town, amongst others, is increased considerably by the appalling condition of overcrowding; is he aware that there are thousands of families crowded together, two families in one house, in the borough of Middlesbrough; and does he consider it true economy to prevent the local authority building when the local authority consider it absolutely necessary?

Mr. SPEAKER: We can never get through the list if every question is argued.

Mr. THOMSON: On a point of Order. This is the only opportunity one has of putting—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! This is not the time for argument.

Mr. THOMSON: On the point of Order. With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman said he could not consider the application. May I ask him if the local authority are not in a better position than the Minister himself to know the needs of the locality?

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.

Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL: 24.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Ireland made a very large contribution to the medical and nursing staff of the nation during the War, and that the skill of those serving was to a large extent acquired in the voluntary hospitals of Ireland; if he will explain why Ireland was excluded from the reference to the Committee appointed by the late Minister of Health, and is in consequence excluded from the grant of £500,000 about to be made to the voluntary hospitals of the United Kingdom other than those of Ireland; and if Ireland will be granted a sum at least proportioned to her taxation as part of the United Kingdom?

Sir A. MOND: I gladly acknowledge the value of the work of the voluntary hospitals of Ireland. I understand that Ireland was excluded from the purview of Lord Cave's Committee, as it was thought that the Irish Parliaments might be left free to provide, as they may think fit, for the needs of Irish hospitals. The last part of the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Clause 1 of the Report of the Cave Committee they evidently contemplate the inclusion of Ireland in the reference, and that in Clause 56 they base the recommendation for a grant from the Government upon the fact that the voluntary hospitals of this country did very fine work in treating wounded soldiers? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was no country which did more in proportion to its resources in this respect than Ireland for wounded soldiers, and will he take steps to prevent gross injustice to Ireland, which will occur if Irish hospitals are excluded from participa-
tion in this grant; will the right hon. Gentleman kindly give favourable consideration to this matter, which involves a very great hardship?

Sir A. MOND: As I pointed out in my previous answer, Ireland was not included in the purview of Lord Cave's Committee or in the reference, and therefore the grant which I am going to ask the House to give cannot be affected by any question regarding Ireland. Ireland is not within the purview of my Department, and any further questions on the subject should be addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: If Ireland had been included in the reference, would the right hon. Gentleman feel it his duty to recommend a grant to Ireland?

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as Ireland pays its proportion to the taxation of the country, and as this is a grant to relieve hospitals out of taxation, Ireland is not entitled to an equivalent grant for the purpose for which the general sum is intended?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that question to another Minister.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I, then, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not confer with the Chief Secretary for Ireland and see if the Irish Government cannot do something on behalf of those who are ill in Irish hospitals, instead of merely driving more people into those hospitals?

Sir A. MOND: I am not responsible for the health of Ireland, and to confer with the Chief Secretary on a matter of Irish business is not within the scope of my duties.

Mr. LEONARD LYLE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister what steps, apart from the grant of money towards voluntary hospitals, he proposes to take to give effect to the recommendations of Lord Cave's Committee dealing with the improvement of the financial position of these institutions?

Sir A. MOND: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am now taking steps to appoint a Hospitals Commission which will be responsible for the estab-
lishment of local voluntary hospital committees, for the distribution of the State grant and for assisting in raising fresh revenue and in combining and coordinating the activities of the hospitals generally on the lines recommended by Lord Cave's Committee. The other recommendations of that Committee, some of which would require legislation, are still under consideration.

Mr. LYLE: In view of the fact that the Finance Bill is passing through the House at the present time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government will consider the Report of the Cave Committee, which recommended that the contributions of employers should be exempt for the purposes of Income Tax?

Sir A. MOND: Yes, that point will certainly be considered.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will there be a representative on this Commission from Ireland?

Sir A. MOND: No, Sir!

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask why there is no representative from Ireland on the Commission?

Mr. SPEAKER: That arose on an earlier question, and was answered. Any further question should be addressed either to the Prime Minister or to the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: On a point of Order. The reasons given by the Minister of Health as to why Ireland is not getting an equivalent grant from this fund recommended by Lord Cave's Committee was that there was no representative of Ireland on that Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—and I want to know why there is no representative from Ireland?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has received an answer.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to answer why? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

At the end of Questions—

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the Leader of the House say why there is no Irish repre-
sentative on the Committee which is to deal with the allocation of the £500,000 to the hospitals?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is too late now to raise that question.

CENSUS.

Viscount CURZON: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether ladies are employed as enumerators for Census purposes; whether any efforts were made to employ ex-service men for this purpose; and how many women and how many men are actually employed upon the duties?

Sir A. MOND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, while, as stated in the reply of the late Minister of Health on 2nd March last, of which I am sending the Noble Lord a copy, the conditions attaching to these appointments have rendered them unsuitable for offer exclusively to unemployed ex-service men, and the position in this respect has been fully recognised by organisations specially concerned with their interests, appointments have been made in a large number of cases in which the applicants were able to satisfy the necessary conditions; and though many such persons, as expected, found it necessary to withdraw upon obtaining regular employment, a substantial number are, in fact, being employed. With regard to the third part of the question, the figures desired are not as yet available.

Mr. ROSE: 30.
asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the urgent public need of information as to our industrial population, and the fact that the full occupational census has usually taken from three to four years to compile in detail, he will take measures to issue as early as possible an approximate or round figure occupational census showing the rough totals of occupied and unoccupied persons, and the allocation of the occupied population amongst the industries?

Sir A. MOND: As no occupational figures for the whole country, however approximate, could in any event be furnished until every individual return has been examined and classified, it does not appear that advantage is to be gained by any departure from the present pro-
gramme. It is intended to prepare and publish the occupational and certain other census statistics by counties. The earliest issue may be expected in a few months, and the whole will, it is hoped, be completed in two years. The importance of these figures is recognised, and every effort will be made to expedite their issue.

Mr. ROSE: Has the right hon. Gentleman quite realised that it is absolutely impossible for this House to frame any sort of intelligent legislation on industrial and social subjects without anything to guide them but the merest conjecture, and will he state what stands in the way of obtaining a rough idea of how the occupied population is allocated among our industries?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has just answered that question.

MENTAL PATIENTS.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: 27.
asked the Minister of Health whether the next-of-kin to private patients in mental institutions, including the next-of-kin to ex-service men, are informed by the lunacy authorities that they possess the privilege conferred upon them by Section 71 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, of directing the discharge of the patient provided he cannot be proved to be dangerous and unfit to be at large?

Sir A. MOND: I assume that the hon. Member refers to Section 72 of the Lunacy Act, 1890. As regards private patients generally the Section provides for the discharge of the patient by the person on whose petition the reception order was made. As regards ex-service men, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 16th June to a similar question by the hon. Member for West Bromwich.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

HORSES (MESOPOTAMIA).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the 30,000 horses to be slaughtered in Mesopotamia by 1st August have been killed to date; what
method of killing these animals is being adopted; and what saving will result from their slaughter, including the nett value of the hides and other products, instead of transporting them back to England?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. As regards the first and second parts of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies given to questions on the subject asked by the hon. and gallant Members for Torquay (Colonel Burn) and Faversham (Major Wheler) on the 21st and 22nd June last respectively. With regard to the last part as was stated yesterday, tentative offers are now being considered for the sale of the surplus animals at Basra.

YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION HUTS.

Viscountess ASTOR: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether trouble resulted from a decision to commandeer a Young Men's Christian Association hut for purely military purposes in one of the Dublin barracks; and whether this is one of the huts it is now proposed to close?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I am not aware of any such incident, but inquiries are being made, and I will let the Noble Lady know the result as soon as possible.

Viscountess ASTOR: 40.
asked whether the Young Men's Christian Association and other philanthropic bodies operating huts on War Department land are required to pay rebate to regimental funds; and, if so, on what ground is preferential treatment given to the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Owing to the large trade being carried out by philanthropic bodies during the War, it was decided early in the War that philanthropic bodies should surrender such profits as had accrued during the War for the benefit of military charities to be approved by the Secretary of State for War. At the request of philanthropic bodies this award was subsequently reconsidered, and these organisations were given the option of paying a monthly rebate of 6 per cent. on turnover in lieu of
the surrender of profits. This procedure has continued in force up to the present date, but the procedure to be adopted as regards the future is now under consideration. The Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, which are constituted to manage the regimental institutes of the Army, pay a higher percentage of rebate than philanthropic bodies; consequently, no question of preferential treatment arises.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that the Young Men's Christian Association have promised to pay exactly what the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes are paying, and is it not really to the interests of the men that the Young Men's Christian Association should go on? It is their wish, and if you consider the interests of the men, and not only the interests of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, perhaps you will give them the same treatment.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: As a matter of fact, I have explained that the Young Men's Christian Association get better treatment than the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that rather than be turned out they would go on on any terms, but the policy of the War Office is to get them out?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No. It will be seen that there is no idea of turning them out, but only of not having so many huts of this sort, because they are clearly redundant.

Viscountess ASTOR: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for War if the order for closing the 48 huts, on War Department land, belonging to the Young Men's Christian Association and other philanthropic bodies, would still be enforced if they undertook to confine their activities to religious and social work, including light refreshments, as agreed by the Army Council, which he said was thoroughly appreciated, and with which he had no intention to interfere?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: As I explained in answer to a question on 24th May last, the large number of philanthropic institutions which sprang up during the War on War Department land is now quite out of proportion to the requirements of the existing peace establishments of the Army, and it has therefore become
necessary to close the 48 huts referred to, which are clearly surplus. I regret that in the circumstances I am unable to accept the Noble Lady's suggestion.

Viscountess ASTOR: I should like to ask if it is not true that the policy of the War Office is to close down the Young Men's Christian Association huts if they can? That is what I would like to know, if they are trying to do that. Is it right? I think the House does not realise that.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Nothing of the sort. The War Office does not want to close down all the Young Men's Christian Association huts, but only those that are surplus.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Has not the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated in reply to an earlier question that there is no idea of giving preference, and could he not therefore make it clear that, if the Young Men's Christian Association are prepared to pay the same percentage of profits as these other institutes, they will be allowed to continue?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The question will, of course, be considered, but as a matter of fact we are closing down only those that are surplus, and not any of those that are not.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it not a fact that these huts are being closed down in a most arbitrary fashion, without any previous notice being given, and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take an early opportunity in Debate of explaining what exactly is the policy of his Department in this matter?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am not aware that there has been any arbitrary action at all.

Viscountess ASTOR: There has.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do the surplus huts involve any charge on the taxpayer, and, if not, why should they be closed down?

SPECIAL RESERVE.

Major HENDERSON: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that since the issue of the Army Order, dealing with the Special Reserve, about April of last year, no steps have been taken to reconstitute this force as Militia; that many battalions are without
commanding officers, and that some are also without seconds in command; and that the great lapse of time which has occurred is making it increasingly difficult for those concerned to persuade officers, who originally sent in their names for new Militia commissions, to maintain any interest in the question; and whether he will take steps to revive the force at an early date?

Sir R. SANDERS: A short Bill, dealing with the change in title from the Special Reserve to Militia, will be necessary, but I hope that it may be possible to open recruiting during the coming autumn. In the meantime, steps are being taken to select officers for the command of battalions which are to be retained, and which at present have no commanders.

Major HENDERSON: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend if the Bill will be introduced this Session?

Sir R. SANDERS: I hope so, but I cannot say for certain.

GRETNA FACTORY.

Major W. MURRAY: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the Committee appointed to consider the respective merits of certain explosive factories declared their preference for Gretna Factory, he will say for what reason their recommendation has been neglected?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The Government had before them all the various solutions of this difficult question propounded by the Committee, but, after a review of all the circumstances, came to the conclusion which I have already announced.

Major MURRAY: 54.
asked whether any estimate has been made of the loss that the nation will sustain by the forced sale of Gretna Factory and the adjoining lands, houses, and workshops; and whether these factories, villages, etc., will be sold as one unit or in sections?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The question of the method of sale of Government property at Gretna will be for the consideration of the Disposal and Liquidation Commission in due course.

Major MURRAY: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will have the suggestions laid before him in regard to the utilisation of the electric and other plants at Gretna factories fully considered and adopted if practicable, so as to alleviate some of the distress with which the district is threatened?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I assume my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the suggestions made by a deputation from the factory received by me on the 8th June last. After most careful consideration, I regret it was not found practicable to adopt any of the suggestions made.

Major MURRAY: Do the Government intend to sell this property by sections or as a unit, as it will make a great difference if sold en bloc?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I have already answered that. The method of sale will be for the consideration, in due course, of the Disposal and Liquidation Commission. I cannot answer what form they will adopt.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House which Department is responsible for answering questions of the disposal of ordinary property?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot answer offhand: but if a question is put down I am perfectly prepared to find out.

WAR DECORATIONS (HOME SERVICE).

Mr. GILBERT: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Government has yet come to any decision as to issuing a medal to all troops who were engaged on home service during the War; whether he is aware that many of the officers and men were of middle age during such service, and were in most cases prevented from age or medical causes from serving overseas; and, in view of this, will he urge on his Department the need for an early decision and, pending the issue of a medal, allow such ex-service men to have the privilege of wearing a war ribbon?

Sir R. SANDERS: As was stated last week, it is hoped that decisions will be reached shortly on all questions of medals and clasps.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE.

MINERS' DEPENDANTS (RATE ASSISTANCE).

Colonel NEWMAN: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether the charge which has been incurred by the local authorities on behalf of the ratepayers in paying a subsidy to the wives and dependants of those employed in the coal industry is a matter for his Department; and, if so, will he give the total amount that has been found out of the rates during the coal stoppage?

Sir A. MOND: It falls to my Department to obtain returns of expenditure by local authorities in England and Wales, but the information desired by my hon. and gallant Friend is not at present available, and I am considering how far it may be practicable to obtain it without putting the local authorities to the unnecessary trouble and expense of preparing a special return for this purpose.

DISTURBANCES, WAKEFIELD.

Mr. JOHN GUEST: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on Friday last about 11 p.m. several small groups of men and boys who along with others had been visiting the coal outcrop workings at Wooley Edge, near Wakefield, in order to persuade the men to cease working, were followed by the police in motor cars and brutally assaulted and batoned whilst on their way home; that some of them were held and beaten by the police so as to require medical attention; that there had been no violence or damage of any kind; that the various assaults were made by the police after the gathering had broken up upon men who had travelled more steadily, but who were at the nearest point beyond half a mile from the workings, and in other cases one and a quarter to one and a half miles away; that this unprovoked attack without warning of any kind upon a body of men whose conduct throughout the stoppage has been exemplary is causing great indignation and grave unrest, and that there is danger of serious disorder arising unless something is done speedily to restore confidence; and if he will arrange for a full and impartial inquiry to be made at an early date?

Mr. SHORTT: I have, made inquiry regarding this incident, and I cannot accept my hon. Friend's account of what
took place. I am informed by the Chief Constable that a crowd of from 400 to 500 men, most of whom were armed with hedge-stakes or other implements, had gathered round the workings shortly before midnight, and that, in view of their threats and their refusing to disperse when called upon to do so, the police were compelled to take steps to disperse them, and clear the roads in the vicinity The only charge that took place was within a short distance of the workings, and batons were not used on the roads half a mile or more away, as my hon. Friend suggests. I see no occasion for further inquiry or any action on my part.

Mr. GUEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that previous to putting this question down I made the most careful personal inquiries as to the facts? I visited Royston and saw some of the men who had been assaulted; is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Monday morning I was over the roads and saw the places where these alleged assaults took place; and is he aware that I visited the outcrop workings and I am entirely satisfied that there are substantial grounds for the points in my question which are matters of fact? That being so and there being such a discrepancy between my statement and the statement of the police, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it desirable that there should be an inquiry in order to clear the police of this unfounded charge if it is untrue, or, if it is not, to bring them to justice?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir; I do not think it is necessary to do that.

Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this crowd which met last Friday evening held a meeting and appointed a deputation which met the owner of this small colliery and came to an agreement which was signed between the parties that the working should stop, and that they were quietly leaving the place when they were met by police who had been speedily sent over and were batoned by the police who had no knowledge of the agreement that had been come to, although the people were quietly going home? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that in regard to a matter like this in a mining district there should be a full inquiry so that these things can be cleared up seeing the peaceful nature in which the lock-out has been carried on throughout the whole of the time?

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that similar conditions to these have been prevailing in all parts of the country?

Mr. SPEAKER: This question was only allowed to be put as a special question after time, in order to get certain information. I must point out that the police, except in London, are not under the control of the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore it is a matter for local inquiries. I allowed this question so that the facts might be stated, but it cannot be argued.

Mr. LAWSON: Has the Chief Constable of this area expressed himself in regard to the conduct of the men in that area during the prevalence of the stoppage as other Chief Constables have done?

Mr. SPEAKER: That may be so, but that would not reach the Home Secretary. The report would go to the people who control the police, and are responsible for them, namely, the local joint committees.

RATES (GOVERNMENT SUBVENTIONS).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made since the 25th October last with the consideration of the equitable readjustment of Government subventions in the relief of rates, and in particular in connection with the Poor Law service?

Mr. YOUNG: This matter involves various questions of great importance and difficulty, the solution of which is not rendered any easier by the present financial difficulties of the country. The issues have continued to engage the attention of the Departments concerned, and one of them, the question of valuation and rating reform, is at present under consideration by a Cabinet Committee.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter was under consideration as long ago as October last, and will he answer my question as to whether any progress has been made?

Mr. YOUNG: Undoubtedly progress has been made, particularly with the question of valuation.

WOMEN (DISTINGUISHED PUBLIC SERVICE).

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that titles and orders are conferred upon men as a reward of distinguished public service, while women are only eligible for the Order of the British Empire, which was chiefly conferred for War service, any steps are to be taken to remedy this discrepancy and to provide machinery by which women who have served their country as civilians in education and other spheres can be suitably rewarded?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Women are eligible for the Imperial Service Order as well as for the Order of the British Empire. There is also an Indian Order which is granted exclusively to women. It is not at present proposed to make any change in the Statutes of the other Orders.

NATIONALITY LAW.

Mr. HOPKINS: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can definitely promise that the Imperial Conference will consider the amendment of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, with a view of permitting the children of all British subjects born in foreign countries to claim as a right British citizenship?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Home Office have prepared a Memorandum on the subject which will be circulated to the representatives of the Dominions and India.

Mr. HOPKINS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question has been hanging on now for seven years, and that thousands of soldiers who came to fight for this country are now in a position of finding their children debarred from citizenship of the British Empire; and further, is he aware that every British community living in foreign countries feels very much this insult to their loyalty?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot pretend personally to be able to verify the statement of the hon. Gentleman; but the business to be taken depends upon the decision of the Conference and the amount of time available. It is not for the British Government to dictate what the programme of the Conference shall be.

Mr. HOPKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it is necessary to consult the Conference at all in this matter? This British citizen's Act was an Act of this House, and not of the Conference.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member would be good enough to read his own question, which asks me whether I can definitely promise that the Imperial Conference will consider this question: that is the question I was asked to answer.

Sir W. DAVISON: Would the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: Further questions had better be put down.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS.

Mr. LYLE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the case that any Germans against whom the Allies have preferred charge of inhumanity and offences against the usages of war will be liable at any time in future, on visiting any Allied countries, to be arrested and put on trial; and whether, if that is the case, due supervision is taken of their movements should they apply for passports?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Pending the conclusion of the present trials at Leipzig, no Allied decision has been taken regarding future measures to be adopted against German War criminals.

Mr. LYLE: What will happen if any one of these German criminals comes over here? Would he be arrested and placed under lock and key?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question had better be put on the Paper.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. WISE: 82.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any part of the payment made by Germany on 31st May was deposited in the United States of America; and, if so, what was the amount, and what was the bank?

Mr. YOUNG: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is informed by the British delegate to the Reparation Commission that the amount received in dollars from the German
Government up to 31st May was $35,733,000 and since that date the dollar receipts amount to a further $12,000,000, and that these sums were deposited with the Federal Reserve Bank, New York, for the account of the Reparation Commission.

Mr. WISE: 83.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the German treasury bills handed to the Reparation Commission were endorsed by the important German banks; and, if so, which of the German banks?

Mr. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The banks were the Deutsche Bank, the Bank für Handel und Industrie, the Dresdner Bank and the Disconte Gesellschaft.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Lieut. - Colonel W. GUINNESS: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that since the measured-message rate has been in force the annoyance of being cut off in the middle of a conversation in the London area has become greatly increased; and whether telephone operators are encouraged to earn a larger revenue for the Department by compelling subscribers to pay for more than one call for each conversation?

Mr. PIKE PEASE: The records of the observation which is maintained on the working of the telephone system show that the percentage of disconnections in the London telephone area both in April and May was below the average for the preceding 12 months. No charge is made for restoring communication, and the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Has not the right hon. Gentleman from his own experience found he is continually cut off and has paid a double call for each conversation?

Mr. PEASE: No; practically I have had no difficulty at all with the telephone.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Did the right hon. Gentleman warn the telephone operator that the Assistant Postmaster-General was speaking?

Mr. PEASE: I usually telephone from my own house. The lady at the office has no knowledge of who is speaking.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Perhaps the name of the right hon. Gentleman is written over the number?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a telephone message was sent from Santa Catalina, California, to Cuba, a distance of 5,700 miles, in two minutes; and can he say why it takes 25 minutes to get connected 25 miles outside London?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

WORKING CLASS DWELLINGS COMMITTEE.

Sir J. HOPE: 67.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received the Report of the Committee on the Cost of Working Class Dwellings in Scotland; and when it will be published?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on this subject on the 27th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh.

MACHINERY, FIFE MINING SCHOOL, COWDENBEATH.

Mr. WALLACE: 68.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether any arrangement has yet been made with the Disposal Board regarding the machinery in the Fife Mining School, Cowdenbeath?

Mr. MUNRO: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 8th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy. I am informed that negotiations between the Disposal Board and the Fife Education Authority are still proceeding, but that a settlement has not yet been reached.

Mr. WALLACE: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend his great influence in order to reach a settlement satisfactory to the Fife Mining School at Cowdenbeath?

Mr. MUNRO: Yes, Sir. The Scottish Education Department is in communication with the Disposal Board on this subject.

VOLUNTARILY INSURED PERSONS.

Mr. WALLACE: 69.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is his intention
to introduce legislation to place voluntarily insured persons on the same footing as persons compulsorily insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act so far as any deduction from income is made when parochial relief is granted?

Mr. MUNRO: The answer is in the negative. I am, however, prepared to consider any arguments in favour of the course proposed which my hon. Friend may care to submit to me.

Mr. WALLACE: Does my right hon. Friend not think that there is a great anomaly here to which he ought to address his very acute mind at the earliest possible date?

Mr. MUNRO: I am prepared to address my mind, such as it is, to any arguments that my hon. Friend may submit to me. At present I have an open mind on the subject.

RAILWAY FARES (LONDON).

Mr. LYLE: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the decrease in the cost of labour owing to the fall in the Board of Trade index number, the public may anticipate in the near future some reduction in the heavy fares on the underground railways of London; whether his attention has been called to the increase in the value of the shares of the company operating such railways; and whether the original concessions made by Parliament in respect of the fares are now proving to have been excessive?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): My right hon. Friend has not overlooked the powers of review conferred upon him by Sub-section 3 of Section 6 of the London Electric Railway Companies (Fares, etc.) Act, 1920, and at the termination of the present half-year the companies will be called upon to submit statements of the financial results of working for examination. It is upon these figures and not upon fluctuations in the market price of shares that any adjustment of charges must be based

ALIEN IMMIGRATION.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 77.
asked the Home Secretary whether alien immigration into this country is being restricted
as much as possible in view of the prevalent unemployment; and whether this policy will be followed in the near future?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

POLICE (PAY AND LEAVE).

Mr. R. GWYNNE: 78.
asked the Home Secretary on what grounds a deduction of £1,200 has been made from the amount payable to East Sussex on last year's claim for police pay; whether it has been deducted in respect of police bonus not paid; and why has no deduction been made in the case of other standing joint committees who are acting in a similar manner?

Mr. SHORTT: The deduction was in respect of the non-payment of the bonus, and similar deductions were made in the case of other forces where the bonus was not being paid.

Mr. GWYNNE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the adjoining county, which acted in the same way, this deduction was not made?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir; I am not aware of that.

Sir J. REMNANT: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many forces have the police been paid for the leave lost during the War; how many police authorities have since the Armistice recognised this service, either by monetary payment or by additional leave in lieu; and whether, in the case of men who had not received any recompense for the lost leave, he would ask the local police authorities to add those extra days to their approved service?

Mr. SHORTT: I regret I cannot give the information asked for in the first two parts of the question. I have carefully considered the suggestion in the third part, and regret that I have no power to carry it out.

Sir J. REMNANT: Where leave is not granted at the time when it is due is it subsequently made up to them as a right?

Mr. SHORTT: No, not as a right, but they have it made up to them.

Sir J. REMNANT: Have the local authorities power to do it?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, they have the power.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ACLAND: May I ask what business the Leader of the House proposes to put down for to-morrow, in view of the sudden bereavement of the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill)? Supposing the Colonial Office Vote is to be postponed, when will it be taken?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I very much regret having to alter the programme of business at such short notice, but I am sure the House will excuse the Colonial Secretary in these sad circumstances. To-morrow I propose to use for the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, to which we had intended to devote two days this week. We shall take the Colonial Secretary's Vote to-morrow fortnight.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act (1912) Amendment Bill, with an Amendment.

Dentists Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for applying to Burma the provisions of the Government of India Act with respect to Governors' Provinces; and for purposes connected therewith." [Government of Burma Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Newcastle-under-Lyme." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Newcastle-under-Lyme Extension) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Ossett and Wakefield." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Ossett and Wakefield Extension) Bill [Lords.]

DENTISTS BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (OSSETT AND WAKEFIELD EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

Orders of the Day — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES BILL.

1ST ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

PART I.

SAFEGUARDING OF KEY INDUSTRIES.

CLAUSE 1.—(Charge of Customs Duties on goods in Schedule.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act there shall be charged, levied, and paid on the goods specified in the Schedule to this Act, on the importation thereof into the United Kingdom, duties of customs equal to one-third of the value of the goods.

(2) Where any other duties of customs, not being duties chargeable under Part II of this Act, are chargeable in respect of any goods chargeable with duty under this Section, duty under this Section shall not be charged except in so far as the amount thereof exceeds the amount of those other duties.

(3) No duty shall be charged under this Section on goods which are shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been consigned from and grown, produced or manufactured in the British Empire, and for the purposes of this Sub-section goods shall be deemed to have been manufactured in the British Empire which would be treated as having been so manufactured for the purposes of Section eight of the Finance Act, 1919 (which relates to Imperial preference), and that Section shall apply accordingly.

(4) Where an imported article is a compound article of which an article liable to duty under this Section is an ingredient or forms part, no duty shall be charged under this Section in respect of the compound article if the compound is of such a nature that the article liable to duty has lost its identity, and any dispute as to whether an article has lost its identity shall be determined in like manner as disputes as to whether goods are goods specified in the schedule to this Act.

(5) For the purpose of preventing disputes arising as to whether any goods are or are not any goods chargeable with duty under this Part of this Act, the Board may from time to time issue lists defining the articles which are to be taken as falling under any of the general descriptions set out in the said Schedule, and where any list is so issued defining the articles which are to be taken as falling under any such general description, the said Schedule shall have effect as if the articles comprised in the list were therein substituted for that general description.

Every list issued under this Section shall be published forthwith in the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazettes, and in such other manner as the Board think, proper.

If within three months after the publication of any such list any person appearing; to the Board to be interested delivers to the Board a written notice complaining that any article has been improperly included in, or excluded from, the list, the Board shall refer the complaint to a referee to be appointed by the Treasury, and the decision of the referee shall be final and conclusive, and the list shall be amended so far as is necessary in order to give effect to the decision, without prejudice, however, to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Members for Central Aberdeen (Major Mackenzie Wood) and East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), to insert at the beginning of the Clause the words, "So long as the Corn Production Acts, 1917 to 1920, continue in operation and," is out of place, and can only be admissible on Clause 16.

Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order. This first Amendment, as it is worded, does not propose, in the way in which Standing Order 45 deals with this question, to limit the duration of the Bill to any precise date. The Standing Order which deals with that says, of course, that the duration of a temporary Act shall be expressed in a Clause at the end of the Bill. The object of this Amendment is to raise the new situation which has arisen since this Bill was read a Second time. As you, perhaps, are aware, the Government have disclosed an entirely new policy with regard to agriculture, and as agriculture was treated by the Government as the principal key industry in the country we are anxious to know the views of the Government with regard to this Bill, not on the question of its duration so much as its relation to their new policy. I respectfully suggest that if you agree that can-be done, we might be allowed to take this Amendment at this place.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the Standing Order is very clear on this point. The exact limit of time is not defined in this Amendment, but it would make the life of the Bill dependent on other considerations. I do not think that that can be done. Whether the Amendment would be admissible on Clause 16 I reserve my view. It certainly is not admissible here.

Mr. HOGGE: I do not want to trouble you too much on that point, but I would like to observe that as we are under the Guillotine it is obvious we never can have an opportunity of raising this point on Clause 16. As it is an absolutely vital point, and as there has been an entire change of policy on the part of the Government with regard to key industries, and as, also, we are working under the Guillotine I respectfully suggest that we ought to be allowed to take this substantial point now.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is out of order here. I cannot say, of course, whether the opportunity will arise on Clause 16. The business of the Chairman is order and not prophecy. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Members for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould) and Middlesbrough (Mr. Trevelyan Thomson), which proposes to insert after the word "Act" ["provisions of this Act"], the words "after the 30th day of September, 1921"—is in order, but I think the point could be better raised on the next Amendment of the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley), on whom I propose to call, and in so doing I may suggest that it is probably intended to add to that Amendment the words, "one thousand, nine hundred and twenty-two."

Mr. KILEY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Act," ["provisions of this Act"] to insert the words, "after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-two."
The object in moving this is to enable such firms as have already made commitments to work those commitments off. We had a precedent for this only a few months ago, in what is known as the German Reparations Act, which allowed those who had already made commitments time to work them off. It was then discovered that no less than 16,000 applications for exemption had to be considered, and that no less than 16,000 different consignments had to be imported. That was under a very limited Bill, and under this Bill it may be that in two or three times 16,000 cases serious injury may result if the persons who have made contracts in perfect good faith are not allowed to work them out. There is another and far more important aspect
of the case. It has astonished me, although I have had some considerable experience, to find what a large number of manufacturers are dependent upon the importation of some commodity or other essential to their respective businesses. A large number of the most important manufacturers of Northampton declare that they cannot produce the best shoe without the importation of a certain foreign leather. If they cannot get the material that they want, it means a certain amount of unemployment. That is one industry, and I could quote half a dozen others which will be very seriously interfered with by this Bill if they cannot get the raw materials and substances which they require. They must, therefore, have sufficient time to go to such markets as do not come within the provisions of this Bill to obtain that which is necessary for them to keep their workpeople employed.

4.0 P.M.

The CHAIRMAN: These considerations are relative to Part II rather than Part I, which deals with the safeguarding of key industries according to the Schedule. The hon. Member is not confining his remarks to the Schedule at all.

Mr. KILEY: It is perfectly true that there are some commodities which come under Part II, but I have in mind a certain commodity which comes under Part I. I have in my own district some very large soap works who find it necessary to import a certain perfume which under Part I they will be prohibited from obtaining. It is quite possible that they may have to go to other parts of the world and find a new market, but, until they obtain that new market, they must carry out their present contracts, and, unless they are to discharge their workpeople, they must have sufficient time to go further afield to obtain the commodity which is necessary for their business. There are a good many issues which might be raised, but I think I have said sufficient to show that time should be given. If there were a representative of the Treasury present, he would be able to convince the President of the Board of Trade by the recent experience under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act of the tremendous volume of work occasioned by a Bill being brought into operation without sufficient time being given to enable existing contracts to be worked out. I think I have shown justification for a sufficient period being pro-
vided to enable those concerned to be relieved before the proposals of this Bill are put into operation.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): I can see the point which has been raised by the hon. Member. I know that he does not like this Bill, but I have no objection to fixing a date some short distance after the Bill becomes an Act. The time which he names is too long. It must be remembered that, after all, the business public have been fully cognisant of the proposals in this Bill for some months past. I think, therefore, it would be quite reasonable to take the date mentioned in the preceding Amendment, namely, 30th September, and if the hon. Member will substitute that date I will accept it, but, if he insists on the 1st January, 1922, I am afraid that is a much longer period than I can agree to.

Mr. KILEY: That represents something like twelve weeks, and the right hon. Gentleman, as a business man, will know that contracts are made for six and twelve months ahead. Therefore, the period he suggests would be of no use whatever. If he would make it the 1st November, it would give from three to four months and would be much more reasonable. Under the German Reparations (Recovery) Act, which came into operation on 8th March, the Treasury found it necessary to extend the date to the 15th June. That was a small restricted measure, and with a proposal of this kind that period and more should be given. If he would substitute the 1st November, I would accept that date.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: We must remember, in dealing with this Bill, that it is going to cause a revolution in our industrial relations in this country. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the industrial community has already had notice of it. It is quite true that they have had notice that there was going to be a Bill or that there might be a Bill, but, as a matter of fact, a great number of people are not yet persuaded that the Government, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman, really wish to have this Bill. It is obvious that the country does not know what the details of the Bill are going to be, and people cannot make their preparations unless they know those details. It is quite idle to suggest that
the manufacturers or merchants of this country can make their preparations between the date at which this Bill will take its final form and the 30th September, suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. After all, we have had concessions of this kind when discussing similar Bills and for exactly the same reason, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will see that if a month's respite in respect of dyes was reasonable, six months in the case of a Bill of this magnitude is relatively very much less. It has always been the practice to give considerable notice of new taxes in order to prevent uncertainty being created in the industry and upsetting preparations which have already been made. It will certainly be September before this Bill is on the Statute Book, if it ever gets there, and my hon. Friend therefore is asking for something less than four months' notice. I should imagine that anyone looking at the matter impartially must come to the conclusion that that is a very short period, and I think the Government will be very unreasonable if they insist upon any less period.

Sir WILLIAM BARTON: The right hon. Gentleman bases his opposition to this Amendment very largely on the fact that people have already had very considerable notice of this Bill. If ever there were a Bill about which people were justifiably sceptical, it is this Bill. The people concerned in this matter tell us, and they are justified in telling us, that it is very largely based on promises given nearly three years ago. If hon. Members are satisfied to accept the performance of promises two or three years after they are made, legislation will proceed very much more slowly. The Government had a Bill in print last year, and people were led to suppose that it was going to be placed on the Statute Book. Then in a most mysterious way it was withdrawn. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a considerable feeling of doubt in the country whether it is ever going to be placed on the Statute Book, and, that being so, it is surely reasonable that some adequate notice should be given. The right hon. Gentleman must know that to-day the Board of Trade is seriously concerned owing to the number of applications caused by the comparative suddenness with which the Dyes Bill was put into operation.

Mr. BALDWIN: indicated dissent.

Sir W. BARTON: I shall be very glad to give the right hon. Gentleman evidence of it. If he does not know it, he is not fully informed by his supporters. To-day there is the very greatest complication owing to the operation of that Act. Here we have an extraordinarily complex Bill covering a great many articles. There are a great many contracts now in existence, and you are going to cut into them and seriously to upset manufacturers. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the reason for it is the safeguarding of industries. Will those few months make all that difference? Surely it cannot be at all commensurate with the trouble you are going to bring down upon traders. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and make it a period of, say, 6 months from the passing of theft Bill.

Mr. ACLAND: I think that my right hon. Friend might give us a little longer than the date he suggested. That is the same date as the date proposed for the repeal of Part I of the Agriculture Act, and it would be almost too good a point to be able to make against the Government that, on the same day on which they have repealed the Agriculture Act, they have allowed these duties to come into force. Let the right hon. Gentleman give us another month.

Mr. HAYWARD: The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that there is a real point to be met, and I suggest that that point cannot be best met by fixing any arbitrary date. Seeing that the concession is suggested in order to meet the case of a person having a continuing contract, I suggest that the date should be fixed for that person as the time when his contract comes to an end. As the hon. Member who moved this Amendment has said, traders in this country have made commitments depending upon contracts for the supply of these goods, and they will be placed in a position of great difficulty if these duties are to be imposed before their contracts come to an end. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might consider the matter from this point of view, perhaps not now, but between now and the Report stage, and see if he cannot meet this point by an Amendment providing for those cases in which contracts have already been entered into for a continuing period. Naturally, some term will have to be fixed, but the duty
should not be imposed while existing, contracts remain in force if proper evidence can be adduced that there are such contracts.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I have an Amendment on the Paper which has a considerable bearing on this point, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give any intimation as to how he would regard my Amendment. I look at this Bill from a different point of view from that of hon. Members opposite. I am very friendly to the Bill, and want to see it come into operation without delay; but there are numbers of contracts covering these key industries which affect every trade and which are still running, and intolerable hardship will be entailed upon the persons who made those contracts if they are suddenly called upon, long after their contracts were made, to pay a duty which was not in existence at that time. I am aware that this must be looked upon with circumspection, and that notice has been given that this Bill was going to be proposed. Therefore, in my Amendment, I have limited the date to the 31st May, namely, the day on which the Bill was introduced, and on which traders had notice of the actual goods and commodities on which the duty was going to be imposed. The Amendment before the Committee does to some extent meet the case of existing contracts, but also, by the proposed extension of time, would delay the coming into operation of the Act as regards future contracts. If the principle of my Amendment were going to be accepted, I should be prepared to-take the view of the right hon. Gentleman as to fixing the date at the 30th September. If he is not going to give the relief for which I ask, I should certainly support hon. Members opposite in asking for the extension of time mentioned in this Amendment.

Dr. MURRAY: This Amendment has been moved entirely from an industrial and commercial point of view, but I think the Government ought to remember that the hospitals of the country have been in dire straits ever since the Armistice. Their laboratories have got out of gear, and almost universally need a great deal of re-equipment. One of the tragedies of the last three years has been the fact that the hospitals have not only been unable to minister to the number of patients who
required their aid, but have been unable to procure the instruments, glassware, and other equipment of that kind which they required in the interests of their patients. I am quite aware that from a fiscal point of view there are objections to delay, because it gives an opportunity to tradesmen to restock their premises. But, even allowing for that, I think that this point ought to be kept in view. The Government have announced that they are going to give £500,000 to the hospitals, but if they do not get time to re-equip their laboratories and restock their instrument departments, nearly the whole of that £500,000 will be used up in extra expense in that direction, so that the Government will be robbing Peter to pay Paul, and this £500,000 will be a sham, a delusion, and a snare. This Bill is going to hit our hospitals very hard, and the governors of those hospitals should be given sufficient time to replace their equipment. That cannot be done in six months. They do not yet know how much of this money they are going to get, and unless they can carry out the whole thing before January, all this money will be practically useless. I do not believe the Government intended that that should be so. It is the result of putting their policy into watertight compartments. The Minister of Health did not know, when he was supporting this Bill, that he was making his gift of £500,000 useless. I want to impress upon the Government the necessity of giving the hospitals, whose laboratories have been reduced to very small and ineffective proportions during the last two or three years, sufficient time to replenish this department of their administration before the Bill is placed on the Statute Book.

Major BARNES: The President of the Board of Trade has now an excellent opportunity, such as does not often come to a Minister, of killing two birds with one stone. He can get rid of two Amendments by accepting this one. If he accepts this Amendment, he satisfies those on this side of the Committee and also the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) on the other side. The hon. and learned Member shakes his head, but I understood him to say that, if the President would accept this Amendment and give us till the 1st January, that would go a long way at least towards meeting his point with
regard to existing contracts. It is not often that a Minister can satisfy the whole House on any subject, and he ought not to let this opportunity escape him. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead likes this Bill, as I understand, but he has an Amendment down to exclude some people from coming under it. That is rather a curious attitude. If it be such a good Bill, why let anyone escape its provisions? I do not know that the hon. and learned Member has made his reason quite clear, but I think it was that the people whom he wants removed from the operation of the Bill are people who will suffer if it is brought in, because their contracts will be affected by an increase in price. That is the whole point of his Amendment, and, of course, it is the whole point of the Bill that it is to increase prices. The Minister of Health put that to us as being the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. If it does not increase prices it is of no use.
It is because it is going to increase prices that the hon. and learned Member wants to remove from under it people who have existing contracts. I think that is a very good argument. I think it is very wrong that people who have made contracts under existing circumstances should be penalised by a Bill of this kind being brought in by the Government. But what they are suffering is an individual loss. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) has pointed out, however, that this Bill is going to inflict a very considerable amount of loss, not only upon people engaged in business for the purpose of making profit, but upon the great charitable institutions of this country, and what, in effect, we are asking in this Amendment, is that some little breathing space should be given in which they may equip themselves and make the most of such small moneys as are now in their possession. One cannot go up and down the streets of London without seeing at every hospital bills notifying the closing of beds and the reduction of the number of out-patients. At a time like this, when every such charitable institution in this country is crying out to the charitably disposed for funds for, perhaps, the most sacred cause to which funds can be devoted—the alleviation of human suffering—the Government are bringing in a Bill to make it more difficult and more expensive to alleviate that suffering. We
come before the Minister to-day with a very modest request, namely, that the operation of this Bill shall be postponed for a few months. So far no really very serious objection has been advanced to that request. When my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) was dealing with this Amendment, I rather gathered, Mr. Hope, that your ruling was that it was an Amendment which only dealt with the part of the Bill affecting key industries. What the Government have before them is the problem of establishing key industries in this country as early as possible and upon as sound a foundation as they can, and the disadvantages that their course of action is going to have for people with contracts and for these great institutions. We on this side believe that the whole country would be better without the Bill, but it is clear that, in the feeling of the present House of Commons, the Bill is going to come. What we now ask is that the passage from the present period, in which all these things which are described in the Schedule can be obtained of the best quality and at the lowest price, to the period when their prices are going to be very much increased, shall be made as easy a one as can be. That is a very strong plea and one to which the Government should listen.
I want to refer to what was said with regard to the Dyes Bill. My hon. Friend spoke of the great inconvenience that had been caused by the operations of the Dyes Bill and said the Board of Trade were very well aware of the fact. I think the impression is growing, not without some reason, that the inconvenience to British trade is not merely a matter of concern to the Board of Trade and that a disclaimer from the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department is not to be taken as disposing of the question. What happened under the Dyes Bill was that there was a certain period of time allowed for postponement, and during that time the people in the dyes business, as far as they could, loaded themselves up with the particular kind of dyes which it was going to be difficult to get, and during that Debate we had the extraordinary situation of one hon. Member admitting that people who were supporting the Bill had loaded themselves up with stocks of the things they were going to prohibit. I think the House winked at that and thought it was a reasonable thing to do.
They realised that it was going to cause a good deal of inconvenience to the textile industry.

Sir W. PEARCE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman referring to a statement of mine?

Major BARNES: It is not the hon. Gentleman I have in mind. If it was a wise and a sound thing in the case of the Dyes Bill to give them that postponement and it was a sound thing to let the textile trades have an opportunity of escaping the immediate inconvenience of that Bill I submit that we have made out a good case for giving a period of postponement in which charitable institutions and individuals with contracts may be able to pass from one period to the other as easily and with as little inconvenience as possible. I should like to read an extract from a letter I have received from a gentleman engaged in scientific research who brings in a matter which is pertinent to the point we are pressing. We are dealing here with key industries and with a Schedule referring to substances, in many cases small in quantity, but immensely valuable for the purpose for which they are required. He says:
The most serious objection to this Bill seems to he that it will necesstate much clerical work and red tape in dealing with the small quantities which are involved. The cost of working the Act would probably provide a handsome subsidy for the industries. All this will cause delay and greatly hinder research, even if the research worker is prepared to get the material at any cost. To give an example from the Reparations Act—

The CHAIRMAN: This is hardly related to Clause 1 or the question of postponement.

Major BARNES: It is on this one point of delay. It would only take a moment—
I ordered some material in February, some of which was not then obtainable in this country, or not obtainable in anything like the purity required for the particular research. One lot of goods was dispatched from Germany in March, and another in April. They were ordered and paid for before the Act. Acting for an institution I cannot get them to pay the duty and be done with it, with the result that the things are still at the docks.
Under these circumstances, in view of the importance of not penalising unnecessarily institutions and individuals, I suggest that the Minister should accept the Amendment.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: My hon. Friend thinks he has made out a good case in support of the Amendment. If the arguments put forward by him and by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) and the hon. Member for Oldham (Sir W. Barton) can do no more than they have sought to do, the case is a pretty bad one. What are the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend? That the hospitals are in want of these instruments, that suffering must be alleviated, and so on. No human being would do anything to clog the ability of a hospital to be properly equipped, but they have not given us a single proof that the instruments are not in the shops or warehouses already in this country to be bought if the hospitals want them. What sort of argument is that. We know that the hospitals are short of these instruments, but it does not follow that the Bill will prevent them from getting them. So far as I can understand, the instruments are at their disposal in the shops and warehouses, and therefore the Amendment will do no good one way or the other. But the most extraordinary and, if I may say so, immoral argument, put by the Member for Oldham, that we are going to pass this Bill because it was a promise, simply astonishes me. If there is any reason for anything being done, I can conceive none better than a word of honour. We were asked on various platforms throughout the country by working men to bring in a Bill of this kind. Whatever employers may say at Oldham or elsewhere, I am quite certain that in my own native city the working people would beg me to vote for this Bill. I gave a promise in my own Division to vote for it.

Sir W. BARTON: As a matter of fact. I did not say a single word at all relating to what was said there.

Mr. SAMUEL: I should be the last man in the world to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, but it is in the recollection of the Committee that he said we are going to get this Bill because we made a promise.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is travelling rather wide from the question of postponement.

Mr. SAMUEL: The arguments put forward by those hon. Members are very
wide if they are used to support the Amendment. I have risen to explain as best I could how little reliance can be attached to arguments of that sort.

Sir W. PEARCE: The example of the. Dyes Bill was an unfortunate one. It. is notorious that everyone knew what was going to happen and there was an enormous importation of German dyes in preparation for the Bill. So much so, that by the time the Bill was passed there was probably a year's stock of dyes, in the country sufficient for all the requirements of the Ministry. The same notice has been given now, and I cannot help thinking that most of the articles in the Schedule are pretty well stocked. I do not say there is no hardship, but I do not think it is of the magnitude that hon. Members opposite have stated. One point my hon. Friend mentioned is, I think, of some importance—I do not know if the Board of Trade can meet it—I mean substances which are not manufactured and are not going to be manufactured in this country. There I can understand that there is a hardship, and there is something in the point, but I do not think it is of serious magnitude.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I wish to drive in the appeal to the Government to extend this time. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) says we have not quoted an instance where it would be advantageous to extend this time to the end of the year. I should like to give one case. Only the other day we saw an account of a new scientific instrument which has been acquired by the West London Hospital for the treatment of cancer. It cost £2,000. Under this Bill £600 odd will be added to its cost to the people who hope to benefit by this treatment. Is that the policy of the Government? There is no doubt that the Bill will increase prices. It is admitted by the Minister. I know the Government have a horror of cheapness. I stand for cheapness, and I am not ashamed of it. What we are suffering from to-day is artificial dearness, encouraged not only by Bills such as this, but by other causes for which the Government are responsible. I believe that had it the money each hospital would acquire one of these new instruments. If you gave them the extra six months and they had £500,000 for the equipment of their hospitals a large amount of human suffering would be saved.

Mr. RAFFAN: Under your ruling, Sir, we are discussing only a section of the provisions of the Bill. We are not dealing with the provisions that affect dumping, where it might be argued that the patriotic course of the British consumer was to patronise the home manufacturer rather than the manufacturer abroad. The whole case for the Bill so far as it affects key industries is that at the moment these industries are not established at home, and under these circumstances it is obviously impossible for the home consumer to secure these supplies otherwise than from abroad. Under these circumstances what is the consumer to do? If he is to receive his supplies in the ordinary course of trade he is bound to enter into contracts, and it is no answer for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that he had due notice that the Bill was to be introduced and that under the circumstances he could make his preparations. What was he to do when he had some information that the Government contemplated legislation of this general character? Was he to cease to order supplies? Was he to enter into no contracts? Obviously, under conditions of that kind it was quite impossible for business to be conducted at all. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that there is some case for the Amendment because he has made what is in his own view, I gather, a concession. If he makes a concession at all he ought to make a real concession. The danger which he has suggested is one contemporaneous with the Bill passing into law. It may be some advantage to have a really definite date whatever it is, but he is making no concession whatever to those who have entered into these contracts. I have risen for the purpose of making a final appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if he will not accept the Amendment in its entirety, at any rate not to close his mind to the appeal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) at least to extend the date to 30th November. If that were done there would be some possibility of justice. We are asking for a very short period, which could not interfere with the operation of the Measure and could not weaken it. We make no attempt on the main proposal of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that, although there is a considerable volume of support of this Measure in the House and in the country, it is opposed by a great volume
of business opinion in the country. It ought to be his object to conciliate opposition of that kind, and he has an opportunity of doing so by making this small concession and easing away the difficulties and making it more possible to carry on the Measure.

Mr. KILEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman given further consideration to the compromise date which I suggested? I suggest that we might well compromise on November.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment. If this Measure be required to safeguard industries, it is required urgently. I am not one of those who believe in the Japanese proverb that if there is anything; you can leave until to-morrow that should be done to-day, always leave it. Hon. Members tell us that we are suffering from dearness of materials. Free Traders say that we must have everything as cheap as possible, no matter what maybe the consequences. If they can prove to us that their policy would have landed us in such a condition that our state of unemployment would have been a great deal better than that in other countries—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entering into the merits of policy rather than confining himself to the Amendment.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member for Oldham (Sir W. Barton) seemed to say that there was hardly any necessity for this Bill, because it was simply to redeem a promise made by the Government. I have a recollection of hearing the hon. Member saying that he thought there might be some reason for legislation of this sort. That was in the days before the General Election, when, although he was still a Free Trader, he said there were a great many things that had happened owing to the War, and he could see his way clear.

The CHAIRMAN: The only question is whether the Bill should come into operation immediately, on the 1st January, 1922, or on some other intermediate date. The hon. Member's argument must be directed to that and that only.

Mr. GREENWOOD: My argument is that there ought to be no more delay than is absolutely necessary, because if we are to safeguard industries, and it is necessary to bring in this Bill, the sooner it is
brought into operation the better. The notice that is to be given, which has been promised by the right hon. Gentleman, is quite sufficient. It is not a good argument to say that because some things will be a little dearer this Bill should not be brought in. We are told that we are suffering because things are too dear. The opposite is the case. We are suffering a great deal at the present time from unemployment because things are too cheap. If you look at the report of advancement in industry in a country which is not a Free Trade country, namely, Germany, you will see that the reason for its advancement—

The CHAIRMAN: This argument is quite outside the scope of the Amendment. The hon. Member may argue that the Bill ought to come in at once and that the arguments that have been used as to contracts are not material, but he cannot go into general policy on this Amendment.

Mr. BALDWIN: When the time for our discussion is so limited, I would rather give more time to the discussion of other Amendments, but some reply is required to the arguments that have been put forward. The hon. Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) talked about giving traders what he called "breathing space." They have had six months' notice. The Resolutions on which this Bill is founded were published, with a list of the key industries, on the 31st March, and from that date to 30th September, which is the date I suggest, is six months. The only reason which should prevent people availing themselves of that knowledge was given by the hon. Member for Oldham, who alleged that a certain kind of popular sceptisism was rife in the country. I am no judge of sceptisism, and I am sorry if it does exist. I always proceed in a spirit of cheery optimism. It is much more likely that people have

managed their business on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for East Newcastle, who spoke of people who had voted in favour of putting some penalties on goods and then had loaded up in plenty of time to avoid those duties. That is not an uncommon form of human precaution; it is common to all people. I know of people who have advocated the abolition of the House of Lords who have become Peers. I remember one gentleman who had been an advocate of Home Rule for Ireland and who when he died left a clause in his will that none of his property was to be invested in that country.

I took the date which I suggest not out of my own head, but from an Amendment put down by two responsible Members of the party opposite, and in doing so I thought I was doing something which would give pleasure to hon. Members opposite. I am sorry that that is not so. My own view is that the time during which people have been fully aware of our proceedings under this Bill has been ample. When the McKenna duties were brought in people had only two weeks' notice. Cases of hardship which do arise whenever any question comes of fresh or increased taxation are met under the Finance Act, 1901, and if there are any peculiar circumstances such as those to which the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) referred, I should be only too glad to look at them between now and the Report stage. So far as the date for the commencement of the Act is concerned, I cannot go beyond the point where I now stand, and that is, to accept the Amendment that was put down in the name of the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould) and make the appointed day the 30th September.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 189.

Division No. 204.]
AYES.
[4.58 p. m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Halls, Walter


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hayward, Evan


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Hinds, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Hirst, G. H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Galbraith, Samuel
Holmes, J. Stanley


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Gillis, William
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Glanville Harold James
Irving, Dan


Briant, Frank
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Grundy, T. W.
Johnstone, Joseph


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Kennedy, Thomas


Davies A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M


Kenyon, Barnet
O'Grady, James
Waterson, A. E.


Kiley, James Daniel
Rae, H. Norman
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wignall, James


Lawson, John James
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Lunn, William
Rendall, Athelstan
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Mills, John Edmund
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Morgan, Major D. Watts
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Wintringham, Thomas


Mosley, Oswald
Rose, Frank H.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Royce, William Stapleton
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)



Myers, Thomas
Spoor, B. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Hogge.


O'Connor, Thomas P.
Tootill, Robert



NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Neal, Arthur


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Astor, Viscountess
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Greer, Harry
Palmer, Brigadier-General G L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gregory, Holman
Parker, James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Pearce, Sir William


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Gretton, Colonel John
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City),


Barnston, Major Harry
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pratt, John William


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Haslam, Lewis
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Remnant, Sir James


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Renwick, Sir George


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Betterton, Henry B.
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rodger, A. K.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl' ckm' nn, W.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Brown, Major D. C.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Seddon, J. A.


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Simm, M. T.


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Carr, W. Theodore
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Casey, T. W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Jephcott, A. R.
Sugden, W. H


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Jesson, C.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sutherland, Sir William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Taylor, J.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Kidd, James
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Tickler, Thomas George


Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lindsay,-William Arthur
Tryon, Major George Clement


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lloyd, George Butler
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tigd'n)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lorden, John William
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Waring, Major Walter


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Fildes, Henry
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Foreman, Sir Henry
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Winterton, Earl


Forestier-Walker, L.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wise, Frederick


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Gardner, Ernest
Mason, Robert
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Mitchell, William Lane
Woolcock, William James U.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Younger, Sir George


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash



Goff, Sir R. Park
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gould, James C.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Dudley Ward.

Mr. KILEY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "paid" ["paid on the goods"], to insert the words "or bond given for payment within ninety days."
5.0 P.M.
I do not know if the Government have made up their minds not to accept any Amendment at all, but in case they have not arrived at that decision I desire to move the next Amendment on the Paper. There are very few firms who have sufficient available capital to put down cash for every consignment of goods which arrives, and for that purpose it will be plain to the House that if every trader is called upon to find 33⅓ per cent. of his total imports it must necessitate a very large increase in his capital. If we assume for argument's sake that a man can carry on his business with £1,000 at his disposal, if he is called Upon to pay £133⅓ before he receives his goods that will involve a substantial increase in his working capital. That will be a matter of difficulty for some traders. There is an arrangement, I believe, which I learned for the first time a few months ago, that in certain cases the Customs authorities are prepared to allow the sale of goods to be delivered on a bond being given for 90 days. I only learned of that arrangement a short time ago, although I have 25 years' experience of the working of the Customs in this country, and when we consider that hundreds of thousands of people will make the acquaintance of His Majesty's Customs for the first time in their business experience under this Bill, their knowledge will not be any greater than mine has been. The Amendment which I propose does not involve any new departure on the part of the Customs, and therefore I beg to move.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I must oppose this Amendment, for the simple reason that, once the principle is adopted, you will have every tobacconist, publican and wine and spirit merchant in the country who imports cigars or wines or spirits from abroad taking advantage of this novel privilege. If the Government is going to alter the whole of its Customs arrangements in order to fall in with the view of my hon. Friend, it will put the country to a deal of inconvenience and loss, and I think it is a principle which cannot be accepted.

Mr. KILEY: It is in operation already.

Mr. SAMUEL: The principle is not in operation already. The Customs do not give the importer three months' credit; the goods are left in bonded stores, and they are not allowed to be taken out unless the dues are paid. If you possess a principle, already stereotyped, in regard to goods like cigars and spirits and wine, why should you make an exception in the case of goods coming in under this Schedule?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I think the case has been very fairly put indeed by my hon. Friend (Mr. A. M. Samuel), who has a very large commercial experience, I think as large a commercial experience as the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment. I am sure my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. It would be contrary to the Customs practice of this country and, I think, of every other country in the world. My hon. Friend must meet the position that it is intended to put on a 33⅓ per cent. duty, and that that duty will be collected in the ordinary way at the time of importation. I can conceive of a case where goods are brought in for the purpose of transhipment abroad, and for this discretion should be left to the Customs, but to put it in as an order to the Customs that in collecting dues they are in every case to accept a 90 days' bond would be absolutely contrary to the Customs practice of this country.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Do we understand that the entrepôot trade will receive consideration from the Government in relation to goods covered by this Bill?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 12 and Clause 13, he will see what the position is with regard to that matter.

Mr. KILEY: We are really suffering a considerable amount of inconvenience through not having a representative of the Treasury here. He would put a quite different aspect on the case. Under the German Reparations Act His Majesty's Customs arrangements broke down on their levying 33⅓ per cent. on certain importations from Germany. At their request I myself recommended the Customs, in no fewer than 3,000 different cases, to allow the goods to be taken out
on a bond for 90 days. What is the use of the representative of the Overseas Department coming down and making the speech he has just made? This matter ought really to be more fully considered, and the Government ought, if necessary, to postpone the consideration of this Bill. If this is not done, what will be the result? His Majesty's Customs or somebody else will have to provide bonded stores for all these goods.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Why not?

Mr. KILEY: The Member for Farnham says "Why not?" That shows how little practical experience he possesses. Does he realise that this would mean some miles of warehouses at every dock, in every port throughout the country? Let me tell my hon. Friend what happened at Folkestone the very first day the German Reparation Act came into operation. The boat arrived at Folkestone and they turned out on the quay three trainloads of goods. The bonded store there was the size of a decent drawing room. The authorities telegraphed to the other side to stop any more goods coming in. They said, "We cannot get rid of them here. The people have not come with the 33⅓ percent., and the ports are blocked.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Find the money.

Mr. KILEY: The Overseas Department are setting up a system by which we are going to get credit, and when that is in operation I suppose money will be forthcoming. But are we to close down whatever business we have until all these brilliant schemes come into operation? I do suggest that between this and the next stage of the Bill the President of the Board of Trade might take counsel with those who have had, perhaps, more experience than he has had of this particular problem. If he will give that undertaking, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson Hicks)—[in Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ("Schedule of this Act"), to insert the words "other than those which are not now or which in the opinion of the tribunal hereinafter set up will not be manufactured in the United
Kingdom"]—is also out of order. He speaks of a tribunal, but he does not set it up.

Major M. WOOD: May he not put down an Amendment later to set up that tribunal?

The CHAIRMAN: I think not, but in any case I should not select an incomplete Amendment like that. The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould)—[In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "United Kingdom," and to insert instead thereof the words, "Great Britain"]—would involve a discrimination against Irish manufactures such as prevailed in the 18th century, and raises an issue too wide to be dealt with by an Amendment to this Bill.

Captain W. BENN: In a Bill which in itself is essentially discriminatory in deciding different duties should be applied to every country in the world, do you rule out of Order a suggested Amendment of this kind?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not rule it out of Order, but I am submitting reasons why I am not disposed to select this Amendment.

Mr. KILEY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
Provided that no duty shall be imposed under this Act which is at variance with any treaty, convention, or engagement with any foreign State in force for the time being.
This Clause will undoubtedly mean that we shall be subject to retaliation by certain Governments. Certain countries from which we import will not take a proposition of this kind lying down. They will retaliate and impose tariffs where there are none now, or will increase them where they are small in amount. Therefore anything which is to be gained by additional trade in one or two directions will be more than off-set, because very few of the proposals which we are now considering involve what are really key industries. There may be one or two which could be construed as key industries, but the vast majority are not. The proposal will undoubtedly benefit the producers of those commodities, but whatever benefit those engaged in producing these commodities stand to gain will be more than wiped out by the increased taxation on commodities which
we export. In enforcing such a proposal as this we are really pursuing a dangerous course which is bound to react on us in a way that is little contemplated at this moment.

Mr. BALDWIN: These words have no effect at all in the first part of the Bill, because the duties in the first part are generally applicable to all countries, and therefore no question of any favoured nation Clause arises. The points that might arise can be debated on Part II. of the Bill.

Mr. KILEY: I am afraid that I have not made myself clear. If we impose duties, as we will do, on these articles, the country on whose goods we impose these duties will naturally be annoyed. They have their remedy by imposing additional duties on any goods which they import from our country. I want to avoid any increased tariff being put up against British goods which we export to the countries with which we have now got commercial treaties, with which we are now doing business. If we put a tariff on their goods they will put a tariff on our goods.

Mr. BALDWIN: I see the point of my hon. Friend now. I am afraid that I did not make myself clear. I think his words mean exactly what I said. What I said was that the duties imposed under the first part of the Bill apply to all countries.

Mr. KILEY: If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept my view, it will be very easy to modify my words.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May I suggest to the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) that we do not propose to break any treaty by doing something which we must not do under a treaty. The hon. Member is assuming something which will never happen. His reciprocity point is that if we do this, other nations will do it. There is not much in the point. Foreign nations will continue to put on such duties as they think proper without any consideration as to what we do in not putting duties on their productions.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Let me recall to the President of the Board of Trade the case of Canada. Some years ago there was a question of preference as between this country and Canada and Canada and this country, and foreign
countries objected under the most favoured nation Clause of commercial treaties, and the same preference had to be given while those treaties lasted or until they were denounced. Is it not possible that something might occur under this Bill which would conflict with commercial treaties? We have no knowledge whatever, and we have failed to extract from the Government any information, about these treaties. My own personal opinion is that there are very few nations that this Bill will affect and that the mere fact that the commercial treaty conflicts with the Bill is mere camouflage for the Tariff Reformers and that this is really another German Reparation Act and will not come into force at all, but I think that we are entitled to some information as to how the position with foreign countries will be affected.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, because he has put a point which the Mover of the Amendment has not put. I would remind my hon. Friend of a provision in the Finance Act some years ago, which it was said would cause trouble, but there was no trouble of which I am aware. As to the point that any action of ours in putting on tariffs might tell against us in other countries, I do not think that the danger of that at the present moment is very real, because most of the countries in the world, for reasons of their own, are raising their tariffs as a general matter of policy, and would not be affected in this respect by these proposals. It is very interesting to see how even the countries who took part in the Financial Conference recently have increased their tariffs since that time. I do not believe that at this particular moment we need consider that point as one which vitally affects this question.

Mr. KILEY: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. KILEY: had given notice of the following Amendment. At the end of Subsection (1), to insert the words
Provided that such duties shall cease to be payable after the expiration of twelve months from the passing of this Act upon any article unless, in the meantime, the Board shall have obtained powers to control the following matters in connection with manufacture of similar articles in this country, namely, the wages to the workers
in the industry, the selling price to the public, and the profits made upon the manufacture.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The next Amendment has not been selected.

Captain BENN: The next Amendment raises, inferentially, the question whether a subsidy or a tariff is the right way to protect key industries, and is an Amendment of some substance.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The point has been considered.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
Provided that no duty shall be charged on any such goods as are shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been imported for the purpose of fulfilling any contract made prior to the thirty-first day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.
This Amendment is to provide that in the case of existing contracts made prior to the 31st May, when the Bill was introduced and public notice was given to everybody of what articles and commodities would be subject to these duties, goods imported to fulfil such contracts shall not be liable to duty. The Amendment is so worded that there can be no chance of fraud, because the onus is on the importer of satisfying the Commissioners that they are so imported. I think that this Amendment will commend itself to the Committee on the grounds of justice and expediency. I object to legislation that is retrospective. This legislation is retrospective by putting a duty on goods that have already been purchased. I object also that it is grossly unfair to people who have made these contracts. Under Clause 3 of the Bill the Duties are not going to be imposed on all goods that are imported whatever their source of origin, but goods from other parts of the British Empire are to come in free. Therefore the man who has made his contract, running perhaps for a year, for these particular goods, with a country on goods from which the duty is payable, will have to pay that duty, which is considerable, until his contract expires, whereas his competitor in trade, who had not made such a contract, although he may have been in the habit of dealing with the same country, will be in a position to go to other countries, on goods from which no duty is payable, and the man who has got the
contract is penalised. I can conceive cases where the cost might be considerable. I have raised this question at the request of several of my constituents, though we are not a trading constituency to any extent. It applies more particularly with reference to Part II, but the principle is the same in both cases. I understood the President of the Board of Trade to say that before the Report stage he would consider cases of hardship.

Mr. BALDWIN: This Amendment appeared on the Paper for the first time to-day. If my hon. and learned Friend would be good enough to bring to me any evidence he has that bears on this matter I should be glad to consider it. Up to-the present nothing has been brought to our notice. I will bear my hon. and learned Friend's proposal in mind and I will consider it before the Report stage, but without giving an undertaking that I will meet my hon. and learned Friend. On the information at present before me I could not accept the Amendment.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I am grateful for that promise. I have no cases relating to the actual commodities mentioned in the Schedule. I have had from several traders in my constituency, which is not a trading constituency, letters on the subject, but more particularly with regard to Part II of the Bill, and the putting of certain commodities in the Schedule. The conduct of business would be almost impossible if people who had made contracts extending over a long period were to find that the articles in which they were trading had been brought under this Bill. The same thing must apply to some of the commodities which are in Part I of the Bill. I am not prepared to give any instances of contracts dating so far back, but there might be very serious loss incurred if the people who made the contracts had a duty put on after the contracts had been made. I think the right hon. Gentleman has met me very fairly and I am prepared to accept his offer.

Captain BENN: We have here an illustration of the absolutely ridiculous and impossible position in which we have been placed. The hon. and learned Member has moved an Amendment on a point of very great substance. He feels the importance of it, and so does the President of the Board of Trade. But this Committee and the House of Commons will
have absolutely no further power in the matter. As soon as the Amendment is withdrawn the President of the Board of Trade will draft another Amendment that will ultimately appear on the Paper, but it will never be reached or discussed, because on the Report stage the guillotine will fall, and then under the terms of the Parliament Act the Government them-selves will have no power to amend their proposal in another place. It means that tariff legislation is being passed by the ipse dixit of a very charming Minister, but he is pursuing duties which properly ought to belong, and would belong, if we were not working under this ridiculous and crippling and humiliating system, to the House of Commons.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I wish to support the Amendment, as I have had an experience exactly similar to that of its mover, in that my constituents are extremely anxious to know what will be their position with regard to contracts already entered into, should those contracts be affected by this Bill. The cases given to me refer more particularly to Part II, but as this is the only opportunity of raising the matter, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will consider Seriously whether in equity an Amendment of substance like this should not be accepted. The cases affected may not be many, but whether few or many, the justice of the matter remains the same.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOIT: I would like to hear the President of the Board of Trade explain what are his reasons for not accepting the Amendment. He leaves it in rather a peculiar position. Here is a theoretical possibility of hardship, a possibility which must confront everyone in the case of forward contracts. The President of the Board of Trade has said that he is prepared to consider any case that is put to him, and if it is proved to him that there are cases of hardship he will consider whether he will do anything. Does that mean that when we are confronted with the theoretical possibility of hardship, before we make any provisions to meet it we must prove every case in this House? I hold that that is not necessary. We should provide theoretically against the hardship, if it is admitted that it is a hardship. None of us can prove all the cases. I think there is some point in the contention that even if the individual
case is proved in practice, under the procedure now imposed on the House there will be no opportunity of remedying matters or of carrying an Amendment. If this Amendment does not destroy the principle of the Bill, the proper thing to do is to provide against the theoretical possibility of hardship by accepting the Amendment now, and later on, if necessary, it can be amended in the House of Lords.

Captain BENN: No; that cannot be done.

Mr. KILEY: The President of the Board of Trade shows a friendly disposition to supporters behind him, and he has given the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment much more favourable consideration than he has given to any proposal that has come from this side of the House. I would beg the Mover of the Amendment to be careful regarding any promise made to him, and to see that words are put into the Bill. Recently I took to the Board of Trade deputations which placed before the Board the details of eight or nine cases which would be affected by the Bill, but the Board of Trade said, "We cannot deal with any of those cases because they cut right across the Bill." There are two forms of contracts to be considered. Assume that one contract has been delivered and that the other contract has not been delivered, or that only a small portion of it has been delivered. The one man would find himself much better placed than his competitor, although both might be carrying on identical work in the same town. One of them would get a very valuable concession and the other would not. It shows where the President of the Board of Trade was wrong in not giving reasonable facilities for all those who are engaged in importing certain articles to be placed on an equality.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I think it is quite possible that a man might have, exempt from taxation, a contract which would run for the whole period of the Bill. There might be forward contracts made for a period of five, ten, or even 20 years. Under this Amendment, the whole of those would be exempted. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley). The customs would have no power to levy
upon those goods, because the contracts were made before a certain date. It is not quite fair to treat a large trader who is able to make long forward contracts in one way, and to treat a small trader in another way. They ought all to be put on the same footing. The Mover of the Amendment talked about paper. If the big paper manufacturers are to be exempted—

Mr. CAUTLEY: The paper consumers.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: If the paper manufacturers are to be exempted, we ought to know what undertaking has been given in the matter. If anyone is exempted, I hope all will be exempted.

Amendment negatived.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "not being" and to insert instead thereof the word "including."
This Sub-section deals with cases where an article which is subject to a duty under this Clause may at the same time be subject to some other duty. It lays it down that where an article is subject to other duties than this particular duty, the other duties will abate; the combined duties will not be more than 33⅓ per cent. unless the other duty happens to be more than 33⅓ per cent. It makes an exception and says that that abatement shall not operate if the other duties are duties which are to be put on under Part II of this Bill. If an article is an article manufactured by a key industry it may be right that there should be a duty of 33⅓ per cent. put upon it in order to give it necessary protection. But if it gets that protection, and it is alleged that it is also an article which is subject to dumping, that 33⅓ per cent. put on for the one reason should be equally operative for the other purpose. If you want to keep out an article which is being imported into this country at less than cost price, and you put on a 33⅓ per cent. duty, that will act to the extent of helping those manufacturers who are making it in this country as a key article, and I cannot see why it should be necessary to put on the two duties. If the Amendment were accepted the two classes of duties would not operate together. I ask the Government why they think it necessary to put on these two duties at the same time. Why not either treat an article as an article made by a key industry, and
put on a duty under the one Section, or treat it as an article that has been dumped into this country, and put on a 33⅓ per cent. for that reason. There seems to be no reason why we should put on the two together, and I hope the Government will see there is reason in my case and accept this Amendment.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think I can agree with some part of the reasoning of the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment, but certainly not with his conclusions. If he considers what the position is, and how these two sections will operate, he will see that his proposal is not reasonable. It was intended from the outset to impose a duty of 33⅓ per cent., no more and no less, on the articles enumerated in the Schedule. Therefore it becomes necessary, supposing some of these articles are already subject to duty, to make allowance for that, so that they shall not bear a greater duty than the 33⅓ per cent. protective duty. Supposing a magneto is already subject to a duty, then it will not pay under this. The object is that there shall be 33⅓ per cent. imposed, and no more.

Major WOOD: The other duty may be more than 33⅓ per cent.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There is no other duty which is more than 33⅓ per cent. That is no reason for preventing these articles coming within the scope of Part II of the Bill which deals with collapsed exchanges and dumping. I quite agree with the hon. Member that once the duty of 33⅓ per cent. is put on these articles it will be more difficult for those who produce them, having that protection, to prove that there is dumping, or that they are suffering by reason of the collapsed exchanges. Persons who wish to dump goods into this country below the cost of production, or who were assisted by the bounty of the collapsed exchanges, have got to overcome the wall of the 33⅓ per cent. It is by so much the more difficult for the foreign exporter to dump into this country once this duty has been put on, but conceding that the duty has been imposed, and that, notwithstanding the duty, articles have been dumped into this country, then people who produce those articles in this country should not be precluded from taking advantage of Part II. For that reason the Committee will appreciate that it is perfectly fair to say that Part II of the Bill should
apply, notwithstanding that the duty of 33⅓ per cent. has been imposed from the outset on these goods. I think that the reason which the hon. Member advances in support of his Amendment might more logically be used in support of the proposal of the Government

Captain BENN: I understand the statement of the hon. Gentleman is that two duties can be charged under the two parts of the Bill if the circumstances warrant it, so that a German magneto might pay 66⅔ per cent. under this Bill subject to certain conditions and perhaps also 26 per cent. under the Reparation Act.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend does not want to misrepresent me. What I said was, that if, notwithstanding the 33⅓ per cent. duty, an article is dumped an Order may be made in that case, making the two duties payable; but unless it is dumped despite the protective duty, then there is only the one duty payable.

Captain BENN: I quite understand. The position is that it pays 33⅓ per cent. to start with, then it will pay 26 per cent. under the Reparation Recovery Act—or the traders concerned—and, in addition to that, if it is possible to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Board of Trade it may have to meet an additional 33⅓ per cent. or about 93 per cent. in all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] This question of what the duty should be has considerably exercised Members of the parties composing the Coalition. There is a group, including the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote), who declare that to rectify the difficulties in which we are placed by the state of the exchanges a duty of 400 per cent. or 500 per cent. will be required. On the other hand, there are other Members of parties supporting the Government, who think that the less there is of this sort of thing the better. I observe in the "Times" they have had the honour of breakfasting with the Prime Minister and Lord Derby, and what those present regarded as definite guarantees were given by the Prime Minister that 33⅓ per cent. would be the maximum duty imposed. It seems to me somebody is being deceived. What is really going to happen is that instead of having a tariff under which a certain duty is imposed which everybody can understand, we are to have an arrangement by which at
breakfast it is promised that the maximum shall be 33⅓ per cent., while at a meeting of more energetic supporters of the Government a 400 per cent. or 500 per cent. duty is advocated.

Sir F. BANBURY: Who was at this breakfast party?

Captain BENN: I do not want to weary the Committee by reading the whole account, but the right hon. Baronet will find it in the "Times" of the 7th May.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Has this any bearing on this particular Amendment to the Bill?

Captain BENN: With due respect, Sir Edwin, it was a breakfast party dealing with this particular Amendment. Not only that, but those attending it came away with a definite guarantee that a maximum of 33⅓ per cent. would be imposed. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was the menu?"] I do not know. I am not one of those privileged to receive invitations to these functions which are held for the consolation of various parties. I do think we are entitled to know where we stand in this matter. The hon. Gentleman will own up to the 66 per cent., though I understand he will not own up to the 94 per cent. Other Members think that 33⅓ per cent. is the maximum, and the fact is that the whole matter is being taken out of the hands of this House, and is going to be decided by the Board of Trade. We should get a definite statement and a fixed tariff. If we must have Protection let us have it honestly and straightforwardly.

Captain COOTE: One of the arguments used by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken does not apply. When I made the statement about a duty of 400 per cent. or 500 per cent. being necessary to correct the effect of the collapsed exchanges, I did so as part of an argument that the Bill was futile. May I address myself more particularly to this Amendment? I am impressed by the reasoning of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Department. I think he has demonstrated conclusively that the proposal to deal with this particular problem as it is dealt with in the Bill is equally futile and that the only proper way to deal with it is by prohibition and importing under licence,
which, I understand, is the view held by a great number of Members in all parties in this Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Let me put it in this way. It is admitted by a great number of Members that key industries stand in a class by themselves. This part of the Bill is intended to deal with the dumping of products of a key industry. If an article which is the product of a key industry is imported into this country it is charged 33⅓ per cent., and under this proposal a further duty will be applicable to such articles if they are dumped. That is what I understood the explanation of the hon. Gentleman to mean.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The antidumping provisions could be applied to such goods as well, if they were in fact dumped, notwithstanding the duty.

Captain COOTE: Then I am right that there is a possibility under this Clause as it stands, that not only the ordinary duty upon a key industry product may be imposed, but also that a duty with regard to dumping may be imposed. May I put it to my hon. Friend, that what he wants to do with the key industries is, to keep the products of those industries which are made abroad out of this country and the really effective way of doing that is not by putting on a duty. May I further point out that he deliberately contemplates in this Clause a state of affairs in which the duty will not be sufficient to keep these things out, and therefore he will have no guarantee that those articles will be made in this country which the Bill deliberately intends to have produced in this country. For that reason I cannot support the Amendment. The Amendment would make it still easier for these products to be imported into this country by limiting the duty in so far as a duty can rectify this matter. If you accept the contention that there is such a thing as a key industry at all and that a duty is effective, then the bigger the duty you put upon the key industry products coming into this country the better. A large number of us have accepted the position that there is such a thing as a key industry, and key industries are defined in the Schedule to which this part of the Bill applies. Logically, the bigger the duty you put upon these particular things the better
for the purpose of the Government and for the purpose of those who brought forward this particular Bill.

6.0 P.M.

Dr. MURRAY: The brilliant little speech we have just heard is characteristic of the attitude of mind of certain hon. Members on the other side who make very strong declarations and wind up by declaring their intention of not voting for Amendments to this Bill. This Amendment has revealed to the House one of the most important elements of this Bill. That is, that an article may not only be charged 33⅓ per cent. but also an additional tax under the Anti-dumping portion of this Bill. I heard the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. T. A. Lewis) make a very excellent speech in support of this Bill on the Second Beading. I understood another hon. Member from Wales was very much against the Bill, however, on the ground of the adverse effect it would certainly have on the price of microscopes and other scientific instruments which are required for use by the universities in Wales. If an instrument that cost £20 went up to £30 by the addition of the 33⅓ per cent. duty, that was bad enough, but now, apparently, it is likely that it will go up still higher by the addition of another 33⅓ per cent., and the poor Welsh may have to pay £40 for a microscope. Yet the hon. Member for Pontypridd promised his constituents to vote for the Bill. An hon. Member asks me what about the Scottish universities. The, Oxford lawns were made by rolling and mowing for 600 years, and that is how the Scottish universities have grown, but I was speaking about the Welsh universities, although, of course, I had got my eye on the Scottish universities all the time. Although they have to pay 33⅓ per cent. extra for all the scientific instruments they have got to use according to the Bill, they may be called upon to pay, according to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), who is never wrong on these matters, over 90 per cent., and I am not surprised that the hon. Members from Wales are getting anxious about the finances of the Welsh universities, as we are about the finances of the Scottish universities. The hon. Member from Wales promised to his constituents to vote for a thing which he
has not really considered, and I do not believe any man or woman in Wales sent the hon. Member here to vote for a Bill that will not only make all scientific instruments dearer by 33⅓ per cent., but, in the case of every old wife who wants a new pair of glasses and who used to pay 5s. for them, will make her have to pay 15s. now.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The Amendment opens a very wide and intricate line of argument, and when I look at it I do not know how to vote in view of the fact that I want industrial alcohol to be free from duty. A thing which comes to my mind as I stand here is a substance called pyroxylin. It contains ether and alcohol and might come under the Schedule to the Bill either as a colouring matter, or a dyestuff, or a fine chemical, or it might come under the description of a compound article or an ingredient or an article which has lost its identity under Sub-section 4 of Clause I. May I explain what pyroxylin is? It is simply a thin film or varnish or collodion which, mixed with ether or alcohol, is applied to leather surfaces and patent leather is the result. It is subject to Customs duty. Patent leather comes in as patent leather and we had to buy it from Germany because of the duty on alcohol or the ingredient. We cannot make up pyroxylin in this country because it is made of a solution of nitric and sulphuric acids and ether and alcohol, and we have to pay duty on the industrial alcohol; but when this pyroxylin or collodion comes in on the leather, made up as patent leather (as a compound article), we have to pay no Customs duties on the ingredients. When it comes in in a non-compound condition as pyroxylin without the leather—

Mr. FRANCE: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member not speaking about another Clause altogether?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think so, as far as I understand his remarks.

Mr. SAMUEL: Pyroxylin thus is an ingredient which forms part of something that might come under the schedule description of organic dyestuffs or colouring matters, or chemicals made by fermentation, and I think I am in order. Suppose the Bill took the duty
under Sub-section (4) off this compound article or ingredient, although it might charge it with the duty when it comes in finished as patent leather, rather than as an alcohol or other compound article, you bring this ingredient material into the country duty free, but the manufacturers here will have no benefit, because unless you take the Customs duty off industrial alcohol the whole of the benefit provided by the Sub-section is nullified. We ought to be careful how we deal with ingredients or compound articles under this Bill, or we may prevent us making patent leather here and compel us to import it in its finished state. For that reason, although I do not say my view is right, I dare not vote for or against this Clause until my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has seen how a position like that I have instanced will be affected by this Bill, and I hope he will allow this to be thought out in special reference to pyroxylin before the Report stage.

Mr. MOSLEY: The most remarkable confession concerning the utter futility of this Measure has just emanated from the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Board of Trade. Up to this Amendment we have always been informed that the 33⅓ per cent. duty was a universal panacea for all ills and an absolute specific against the conditions in which we find ourselves to-day, but now the hon. Gentleman comes down and envisages a prospect where a 33⅓ per cent. duty is wholly and utterly inadequate. He said, "Supposing we have a key industry protected with a 33⅓ per cent. duty, and the goods still come in from abroad, it is open to us to apply also the anti-dumping duties—if necessary, to the extent of 90 per cent. foreshadowed by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn). After all these discussions, therefore, we find that a 33⅓ per cent. duty is not considered adequate, but that in some cases a duty of about 90 per cent. is required. What happens in the cases where it is not within the power of the Government to apply a duty of more than 33⅓ per cent.? The fact is, as everybody knows, that under these conditions of great collapses of certain exchanges a duty of 500 per cent. or 600 per cent. would be necessary to protect these industries in our country. In fact, no tariff of any sort could conceivably protect these articles under the conditions of fluctuating exchanges which prevail at the present
time. The root of the whole matter is that the Government is out to get as much protection, by one way or another, as it can, but that in reality it knows well, as everybody else knows, that no protection which it can get under this Bill will really affect the condition of industry in this country one iota one way or the other. The whole Measure, from beginning to end, is pure camouflage, pure eyewash, to satisfy traders who are complaining to-day in face of world conditions which it passes the wit of man to remedy by legislation of this sort, and the Government knows, of course, as well as everybody knows, that industry can only be adversely affected, if it is affected at all, by a Measure of this sort. We have now a confession that 33⅓ per cent. is utterly farcical.

Mr. FRANCE: I am beginning now to understand the mixture of somewhat cynical levity and extreme gloom on the part of the Ministers. I wish the Minister for Education had been here. When he was speaking the other day, he spoke of this as being a right thing to adopt, this key industry remedy, but he said it was a poison. He was only thinking of 33⅓ per cent. He must have been at the breakfast which has been referred to, and he was imbued with the idea that only 33⅓ per cent. was being charged. What he would think of a possible double dose of poison, of 66 per cent., I do not know. I should like to ask the hon. Member in charge of this matter whether it really means that he is so determined to make all the articles in this Schedule dear, more difficult for those who use them to purchase, that if, after putting on 33⅓ per cent. for the purpose of protecting or helping a key industry, someone abroad desires to reduce the price slightly in order to try and meet competition and get into this country, that would be construed at once by the Board of Trade as an act of dumping, and that the other duty of 33⅓ per cent. would be put on? If that is so, if my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Coote) really desires to keep these things out at all costs, I quite agree with him, though it is not my point of view, that this is all futile. You are not going to succeed, and nobody thinks you will succeed, in protecting this country by these duties of 33⅓ per cent. or 66 per cent. If firms are determined to get their goods in, they will try to do so, and
we can contemplate in twelve months' time the hon. Member who represents the Board of Trade coming down and saying, "The duty of 33⅓ per cent. is no good; I have made it 66 per cent., because somebody has tried to get their goods in; that is no good, and I must ask for something more," which is the inevitable course which follows when you once begin to try to remedy matters of this kind by putting on tariffs. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill and his able assistant the Parliamentary Secretary are genuinely as anxious as many of us are to see that any industry essential for a time of war is helped in the country, they will adopt the method, however unpopular it may seem to be, of giving some assistance to that trade by coming to Parliament in a bonâ fide, open way, and asking for funds, and not by trying these, foolish expedients, which will only lead to expense and to objections which everyone can foresee, but which the Government will not admit now.

Mr. T. THOMSON: The ambiguity of this matter is admitted, and I perhaps may also plead guilty to haziness as to what this does mean. May I take a concrete case? Take tungsten, which is a key industry, according to the Schedule. It is entitled to the 33⅓ per cent. duty. Is it also entitled to an additional, say, 20 per cent. which is required to prevent it being brought in as a dumped article? Does it get 53⅓ per cent. as the necessary protection, or does the 33⅓ per cent. which it gets as a key industry also cover the 20 per cent. which it might claim as a dumped article? Does the greater include the less, or what? I submit that, where you are beginning to interfere with trading and contracts, you want to have everything down as clearly as possible, so that the trader may know exactly to what he is liable and what he has to provide against. In view of the Debate that has taken place in this Committee, there appears to be a certain amount of haziness on the part of Members on both sides of the House as to what this proviso really does mean. Seeing the right hon. Gentleman resists the Amendment, it seems desirable he should make the matter clear.

Major M. WOOD: I think we ought to have an answer to the very specific request made by hon. Members, for the thing goes to the very root of the matter.

Question put, "That the words 'not being' stand part of the Clause."

Division No. 205.]
AYES.
[6.20 p. m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gregory, Holman
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Gretton, Colonel John
Pearce, Sir William


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Gritten, w. G. Howard
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Astor, Viscountess
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perring, William George


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City of Lon.)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Pratt, John William


Barlow, Sir Montague
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rae, H. Norman


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Reid, D. D.


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Remer, J. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hills, Major John Waller
Remnant, Sir James


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Renwick, Sir George


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Rodger, A. K.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Brown, Major D. C.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Seddon, J. A.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)


Butcher, Sir John George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Carr, W. Theodore
Jephcott, A. R.
Simm, M. T.


Casey, T. W.
Jesson, C.
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Kidd, James
Stewart, Gershom


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sturrock, J. Leng


Coats, Sir Stuart
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Sugden, W. H.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Cope, Major William
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Taylor, J.


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lloyd, George Butler
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lorden, John William
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Tickler, Thomas George


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Dennlss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Doyle, N. Grattan
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Waring, Major Walter


Fildes, Henry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Foreman, Sir Henry
Mitchell, William Lane
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Winterton, Earl


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wise, Frederick


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Wolmer, Viscount


Gee, Captain Robert
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Nall, Major Joseph
Woolcock, William James U.


Gilbert James Daniel
Neal, Arthur
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Younger, Sir George


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Hack'y, N.)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John



Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greer, Harry
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Barton, Sir William (Oldham)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

The Committee divided: Ayes, Noes, 84.

Briant, Frank
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Rendall, Athelstan


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hogge, James Myles
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cairns, John
Holmes, J. Stanley
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Irving, Dan
Royce, William Stapleton


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Johnstone, Joseph
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kennedy, Thomas
Spoor, B. G.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Kenyon, Barnet
Swan, J. E.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Kiley, James Daniel
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Lawson, John James
Tootill, Robert


Gillis, William
Lunn, William
Wallace, J.


Glanville, Harold James
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Waterson, A. E.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Wignall, James


Grundy, T. W.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Mosley, Oswald
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Halls, Walter
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Hayday, Arthur
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wintringham, Thomas


Hayward, Evan
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
O'Grady, James



Hinds, John
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, G. H.
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Major Mackenzie Wood and Mr. T.




Thomson.

Mr. KILEY: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
In protecting key industries, surely the manufacture of the articles concerned, which are supposed to be essential for the safety of the country, should be in the country? That, in fact, is one of the justifications for this Bill, certainly one that is brought forward, and the reason adduced for the necessity of this Bill. Immediately, however, the Government put up a proposition such as is contained in this Sub-section and then proceed to drive a coach and pair through what they apparently desire by saying that if goods are made in some other part that will meet their views. What on earth is the use of that kind of action at a time of crisis? At such a time, if we want the goods at all, we want them available and not in some far away place where they cannot be got at because of a blockade. How can hon. Members opposite expect manufacturers in this country to go to the expense, which, it is alleged, they must go to, in order to make these articles in this country and at the same time you do what you can to prevent their efforts being successful by permitting the importation of the goods of competitors in other parts of the world? That is a policy I cannot for a moment understand; that is to say, if the Government are sincere in what they say.
Look at what may happen. Suppose a firm in America opens out a branch, which they can well do, in Canada. It may not be a British concern at all. An American can open up in any part of our Dominions where, it may be, they would be gladly
welcomed. What on earth is the use of this present proposal to assist manufacturers of this country in view of such action on the part of other competitors? The proposal is not likely to help manufacturers or to provide much employment. It may do something to enable manufacturers here to lose their money if they start investing and putting up works. This proposal shows the insincerity of the Government and of these proposals from start to finish. Again, is it, or is it not, desirable in these circumstances to obtain some assurance from our Dominions that they will reciprocate? Have hon. Members seen in the newspapers during the last day or two as to the prohibition of British-made boots into South Africa? They prohibit these goods from going into South Africa. If the Government wish them to be made so as to provide work for the unemployed here they should protect those who put their money into industries in this country which are necessary in order to manufacture these goods. I do not think this is the time to give encouragement of this kind which will only hinder and hamper the manufacture of those particular goods in this country.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made an interesting speech, which I confess surprised me very much, because his principal complaint appears to be that the protection of our home manufacturers is complete enough. In his speech he mentioned the fact that it would be very easy for American firms to go to Canada and produce these goods, and
then export them here and so avoid the duty. That will not alarm many hon. Members of this House. The hon. Gentleman is inclined to forget that, after all, we want these goods, and in the illustration he has given they will provide employment in Canada and also revenue to the Government of Canada. I hope the time is coming when we shall be more inclined to look upon our Dominions as part of the system of the Empire, and I think we should be rather pleased than otherwise to see American firms moving into our British Dominions, because this would help us to build up our Empire as a whole.

Mr. STURROCK: The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) professes to be a pure Free Trader, but he took up an attitude which to me seems utterly at variance with the views of all those of us who are genuine Free Traders. Here we are discussing a proposal in the Bill which is directly in the path of creating Imperial Free Trade and a world-wide Free Trade, and my hon. Friend, anxious to secure petty party points, says in effect: "We will not have this proposal and we must have a bigger measure of protection." My hon. Friend opposite admits that at the very worst this proposal is one which is going to employ British labour, if not at home, at any rate in the Colonies. I do not think my hon. Friend at this time of day would venture to suggest that this Imperial House of Commons should do anything to repudiate the bonds which have been formed with our Dominions. This proposal is not going to hurt British trade, but it will help it. I appeal to all those who are anxious to maintain any shred of Liberalism on the Benches opposite to withdraw their opposition to this Sub-section.

Captain Benn: I quite understand now why the Government have applied the Closure to this Measure. I do not think this Bill could stand very much more support like that which has just been given to it by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Sturrock) who is one of the most interesting studies in the House. It is not many months ago since the hon. Member opposed a Resolution declaring that key industries instead of being protected by import duties should be controlled and assisted by the State. That proposal was opposed by the hon. Gentle-
man and his friends, and now he comes forward in support of a tariff. We are told that this duty is not being put on as a tariff, but in order to create employment. We are supposed by this proposal to be safeguarding the vital military necessities of the Empire, and for that purpose we have a tariff devised to provide that only in these islands shall we produce the things we may require in the next war. Then the Government come along and say it does not matter whether they are manufactured in this country or in Australia. This proviso is merely for the safeguarding of the military defences of the country. We see the Bill now as it really is, namely, under the pretence of military necessity, and utilising the so-called lessons of the War the Government is satisfying the protectionist cravings of their supporters.

Captain ELLIOT: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the spirited interlude to which we have just listened from the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn). His argument was founded on the theory that only in this island is there any danger from a military point of view, but he does not realise that our military necessities apply to the whole of the Empire and that in a future war we might find the Australians, for example, manufacturing these articles. All these goods produced within the Empire are valuable to the Empire if hostilities break out involving any part of the Empire. It has been shown that when you have goods produced in this Empire they are produced under the sovereignty of the people who are working for the needs of the Empire as a whole, and against the Empire's enemies as a whole. The British Navy is not an entirely negligible factor in the strategical necessities of the day, and when the hon. and gallant Member argues that to foster the manufacture of goods which may be useful to the Empire in time of war in any other part of the Empire except these islands is a thing that should not be done because it will be of no use to the Empire if hostilities break out he is going rather far even for one of the apostles of ancient Liberalism who has learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

Mr. HAYWARD: Unlike the argument which has been put forward by some hon. Members, I am very grateful for the extent to which these articles are ex-
cluded. My complaint is that goods produced in other territories are not also excluded. We have been told from the Front Bench that this Bill has been based upon the Paris Resolutions. Those Resolutions contain some indirect reference to the kind of article which is included in Part I of this Bill. In the Paris Resolutions, under Part III, which deals with permanent measures of mutual assistance and collaboration amongst the Allies, it is provided that
The Allies decide to take the necessary steps without delay to render themselves independent of the enemy countries in so far as regards the raw material and the manufactured articles essential to the normal development of their economic activities.
If this part of the Bill has been based on the Paris Resolutions, which we were told it was, then it must be built upon the Clause I have just read. If that is so, I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he would tell us how it is, in accordance with the decisions come to by the Paris Resolutions, that the countries of our Allies have not been excluded from the operation of this Clause as well as the countries of the British Empire. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to deal with that point. On more than one occasion we have been told that the Bill is based on the Paris Resolutions, and yet, if we read them, we find they were come to by agreement amongst the Allies for the protection of the Allies against enemy countries, and now we find in this Bill they are directed against our Allies, and that they are not solely directed against enemy countries, as was the intention of the Paris Resolutions.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I do not think the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) followed his argument to its logical conclusion. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) was protesting against American firms opening works in Canada and producing these goods within the British Empire in order to avoid the duty, and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth contested that argument, and pointed out that this would be even more effective than if the articles were produced in our own country. If this key industry policy is adopted it will be easy for the American manufacturers to set up works for the production of magnetos and other goods beyond the Canadian border, and when
war breaks out they can shut down those works, and this would leave us worse off than we were before. If this Sub-section is allowed to remain you may create a false sense of security, because this provision would cease to be of any use if war broke out.

Mr. FORD: I wish to protest against the limitation which the hon. and gallant Member for Leith Burghs (Captain W. Benn) attempts to put on this Bill by suggesting that it is merely directed against the submarine menace. The hon. and gallant Member will admit he is hardly doing justice to the Bill, because there is a great deal more than the submarine menace to be guarded against. There is the menace of the capture of our industry by foreign countries likely to be hostile to us, and that is a great deal more serious than the mechanical danger arising from submarines. The hon. Member who last spoke (Mr. Hopkinson) raised a much more important point with regard to this Clause, but I would protest against taking the danger which he suggested too seriously, because, after all, if we have a body of men trained to a particular industry in any part of our Empire—Canada, for example—it is quite true that while the Americans might withdraw their capital and shut down their works, we would still have left with us that trained body of workmen, and there would be a possibility of coming to some arrangement with them which would put us in a better rather than a worse position.

Major M. WOOD: I only want to say one word on this particular Amendment. I cannot say I am in favour of it. I believe the reason for putting it down was really to draw attention to the discrimination which has been made by the Government with regard to goods under Part 1 and those under Part 2 of the Bill. I do not think it matters much whether this particular Sub-section is in the Bill or not, because there are so comparatively few of these key articles which are manufactured in the Colonies. Why is it the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit not to put in a similar provision with regard to articles which come under Part 2? The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) suggested that this was put in in the interests df employment. I hope he will give us his support when we come to con-
sider a similar question to this later on in the Bill. As a matter of fact, this does not touch the question of employment at all. I would like the right hen. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to inform the House why he is giving this seeming preference to the Dominions while he is denying a similar preference which would be of real substance. I think we are entitled to some explanation why this discrimination is being made.

Captain BAGLEY: Every speaker who has taken part in this Debate seems to have come to the conclusion that this affects the setting up of industries in outlying parts of the Empire only, but I cannot see why industries should not grow in Canada and in this country. I would point out to those hon. Gentlemen who are supporting the Amendment that at a later stage the President of the Board of Trade is introducing a new Clause under which it is specifically provided that if an industry is not set up in the United Kingdom within two years it ceases to obtain the benefits of this Bill, and becomes duty free, so far as that particular article is concerned.

Mr. KILEY: As I have achieved the object which I had in view—that of calling attention to the fact that while the Government desire people to put their money into various key industries, they are doing their best to permit the import of the product of such industries—I ask leave now to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir G. COLLINS: I am not anxious to move the next Amendment at this stage if I can have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the very important principle contained in it will be discussed at a later stage. If he will give me that—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better formally move his Amendment.

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert a new Sub-section—
(4) No duty shall be charged under this Section on goods which are shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been imported for the purpose of being used in shipbuilding or ship repairing.
My object is to ask the Government what their intention is regarding the vital in-
terests of shipbuilding and shipping in Great Britain. As the Committee knows, different countries which have tariffs make exemptions so far as their shipbuilding industries are concerned. I have had prepared the practice in force to-day in many countries. When this country is starting on a protective tariff and under a protective system to develop certain industries at the expense of other industries, it is very vital that our large shipbuilding industry should not be affected. Other countries which have protective tariffs, of course, make special exemptions so far as their shipbuilding industry is concerned. Take the case of America. Every article for use in the building of ships, the construction of machinery, and outfit or equipment—I direct the attention of my right hon. Friend to these words "outfit or equipment"—may be imported free of duty on proof that they are to be used for this particular purpose. In Japan the same system is in force to-day. That country has a highly protective system. Duties are levied at the ports, but according to a recent Act passed in May this year, iron and steel material and ships' equipment, or any part thereof, are not liable to duty. What is the policy of the Government contained in this Bill?

Mr. FRANCE: Are we not dealing with Part 1 of the Bill, and are not the matters with which the hon. Gentleman is dealing included in the Schedule?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entirely out of order. Many of the articles to which he is referring may be used in the industry.

Sir G. COLLINS: Sextants and barometers are undoubtedly part of a ship's equipment. No ship could go to sea without them.

Mr. G. TERRELL: This Amendment deals expressly with shipbuilding material and ships' equipment.

The CHAIRMAN: I have sufficient technical knowledge to say that some of the articles mentioned in the Schedule may be affixed to a ship.

Sir G. COLLINS: The point I am raising is a very important one affecting hundreds of thousands of workers, and although hon. Members may be anxious to stop the Debate, I want to point out that the action of the Government is calculated to curtail employment in every
shipbuilding area in Great Britain. If we are going to be governed by the Guillotine, and if Bills passed through this House are going to be administered by special committees sitting at the Board of Trade, I hope at any rate hon. Members will, during the two or three minutes which remain to me, allow me to press this very important point. I have mentioned the system to-day in force in America and Japan. Germany also adopts a similar system to that in force in those countries, and articles of iron and other articles used in shipbuilding are admitted duty free in Germany. Even the Argentine adopts more scientific methods of protecting her industries than are embodied in the proposals contained in this Bill. In Belgium all materials required for building, or for the construction of ships, or which will enable ships to go to sea in a seaworthy condition, are admitted duty free. Denmark has much the same system. The system in Italy varies to a certain extent, but still the duties are not so heavy on those articles which are used for the construction of ships. There are many points I would like to bring forward in support of this Amendment. Unless the Government are going to alter their policy they are going to make Germany the greatest shipbuilding centre. Their policy will directly have that effect. To-day on the Clyde, and for many years past, our shipbuilders have been able to maintain their position as the greatest shipbuilding centre in the world, but that position will be in jeopardy if this Bill becomes law. Our shipbuilders on the Clyde have been able to purchase their requirements—

Sir WILLIAM RAEBURN: This is the first time I have ever heard that a barometer or a sextant entered into the building of a ship.

The CHAIRMAN: I think it is a matter of discussion, not of order.

Sir G. COLLINS: Although barometers do not enter largely into the cost of a ship, yet they are a part of the equipment. As this is the only Parliamentary opportunity we shall have of bringing this matter before the attention of the Government, I have been very anxious to ascertain what are the intentions of the Government in relation to the shipbuilding industry. When I rose to move this Amendment I intimated that I was not anxious to do so at this stage if only the Government would give an assurance that the point would be considered at a later stage. I hope the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Sir W. Raeburn) will realise that his constituents on the north side of the Clyde are equally interested in this proposal, and I trust we may have him supporting us on this occasion. I repeat I am anxious to find out what is the intention of the Government on this point. Before the War the Clyde shipbuilders were able to purchase all the articles they required, and they often bought steel plates from the Continent. They were thereby enabled to build ships on the Clyde, and by that means maintain a large number of people on a high level of subsistence, and they sold their ships to other countries all the world over.

It being Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 13th June, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 73.

Edge, Captain William
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Rodger, A. K


Fildes, Henry
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Lloyd, George Butler
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Foreman, Sir Henry
Lorden, John William
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Simm, M. T.


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Gee, Captain Robert
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T, J.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stewart, Gershom


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y N.)
Mason, Robert
Sugden, W. H.


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Mitchell, William Lane
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Gregory, Holman
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Taylor, J.


Gretton, Colonel John
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Tickler, Thomas George


Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedtord, Luton)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nail, Major Joseph
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Neal, Arthur
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Waring, Major Walter


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hood, Joseph
Pearce, Sir William
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn.W.)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Perring, William George
Winterton, Earl


Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Wise, Frederick


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Wolmer, Viscount


Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Pratt, John William
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Rae, H. Norman
Woolcock, William James U.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Jephcott, A. R.
Reid, D. D.
Younger, Sir George


Jesson, C.
Remer, J. R.



Jodrell, Neville Paul
Remnant, Sir James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Renwick, Sir George
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
McCurdy.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Halls, Walter
O'Grady, James


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayday, Arthur
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hayward, Evan
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Rendall, Athelstan


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hinds, John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Royce, William Stapleton


Briant, Frank
Irving, Dan
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Cairns, John
Johnstone, Joseph
Spoor, B. G.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, Thomas
Swan, J. E.


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kiley, James Daniel
Tootill, Robert


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Waterson, A. E.


France, Gerald Ashburner
Lawson, John James
Wignall, James


Galbraith, Samuel
Lunn, William
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Gillis, William
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Glanville, Harold James
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hogge and Mr. G. Thorne.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Board of Trade to apply Part II to certain goods.)

(1) If, on complaint being made to the Board to that effect, it appears to the Board that goods of any class or description (other than articles of food or drink) manufactured in a country outside the United Kingdom are being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom—

(a) at prices below the cost of production thereof as hereinafter defined; or
(b) at prices which, by reason of depreciation in the value in relation to sterling of the currency of the country in which the goods are manufactured, are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom;

and that by reason thereof employment in any industry in the United Kingdom is being or is likely to be seriously affected, the Board may refer the matter for inquiry to a committee constituted for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

(2) If the committee report that as respects goods of any class or description manufactured in any country the conditions aforesaid are fulfilled the Board may by order apply this Part of this Act to goods of that class or description if manufactured in that country:

Provided that no such order shall be made which is at variance with any treaty, convention or engagement with any foreign State in force for the time being.

(3) An order made under this Section shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made for a period of twenty-one days during which that House has sat, and if that House before the expiration of that period presents an address to His Majesty against the order His Majesty in Council may annul the order, and thereupon the order shall become void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawson—

Mr. A. SHAW: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance as to where the Committete now stands? There are a number of most important Amendments to that portion of the Bill contained in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 which deals with dumping. Is the whole of that portion of the Bill to go without a single word of discussion, and are we to have no redress against this mockery of legislation?

The CHAIRMAN: The decision of the House was that discussion on Subsection (1) of Clause 2 down to the end of paragraph (a) should come to an end at 7 o'clock, and that all necessary questions connected with the business should be put then. We now come to para-
graph (b), and the first Amendment I call is that of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson).

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman whom you have just called you will take the whole discussion down to Subsection (3)? I am asking because there is an Amendment in my own name and in that of the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) which deals with paragraph (b).

The CHAIRMAN: If, as might be possible, paragraph (b) were omitted, I would then allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment to be moved, if it did not increase the charge.

Captain BENN: In reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. A. Shaw), I understand the Order of the House is that Clause 2 down to the end of paragraph (a) has to be disposed of by 7 o'clock. That being so, are we to understand that we have disposed of the question of dumping without even having had a Division upon it, apart from any Debate?

The CHAIRMAN: I have had my. doubts on this point, and I have ascertained that the precedents are as I have stated, and that it is necessary to dispose of the business concluded, but that the point involved will be covered when the Question is put that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. There is no question of this particular course not being strictly in accordance with precedent.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words
or (b) at prices which, by reason of depreciation in the value in relation to sterling of the currency of the country in which the goods are manufactured, are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom;
I am moving to leave out that portion of the Bill which deals with the depreciation in value in relation to sterling, and what is said will be its effect upon prices. We are not quite sure that the arguments in relation to the effect of exchange on prices will hold good. I am not one of those who is in a position to-day to speak with any kind of accuracy upon the question of exchanges. As I have listened to
the Debates in this House I have gathered the impression that the bulk of hon. Members are not in a position to speak with great accuracy upon the question of exchanges. The longer I listened to the experts on the question of exchanges the more mystified I was. Here is a Bill which lays it down that articles are to be excluded when they are sold or offered for sale at prices which, by reason of depreciation of value in relation to sterling of the currency of the country in which the goods are manufactured—that is to say, at prices which are affected by the rate of exchange. I want to know, as a simple layman on this question, how the Government are going to decide that the price of an article is affected by the rate of exchange. It seems to me that it is almost impossible to say that the price of a certain article is affected simply and solely by the rate of exchange of the country in which it is manufactured. How do we know, for instance, that it is not affected by the skill of the people who produce the article, or the initiative of the company employing the men who produce it? We, as workers' representatives on this side of the House, have been told in this House repeatedly that the reason why the industries of this country are being undermined is the improved average output of, say, the German worker as against our output in this country. That has been thrown at us from time to time. How do we know that it is not because the average worker in Germany increases his output as compared with the output of the workman in this country, as hon. Gentlemen from time to time say is the case?
If an article that comes from Germany, or any of the other countries aimed at by this Bill, is cheaper because of the relatively increased output and the relative value of the worker, how can it be said at the same time that it comes into this country more cheaply because of the rate of exchange? I remember reading in a newspaper the experience of a manufacturer who had been in Germany, and who said that in his opinion the reason why we had been beaten, say in shipbuilding, is that the worker there is working harder, is working longer hours, is smarter at his work, and all the kinds of things that could be said to the derogation of the British workman. He says, therefore, that even ships are going from
this country to Germany to be repaired by German workmen. Of course, he says they are not getting much butter, they are not getting any meat, and do not get very much milk; but still they are working harder. It may be that it is as the result of very low wages that the article is able to come into this country more cheaply. It may be because of improved output; it may be because of improved skill as against some of our own firms; it may be as the result of improved technical education which gives the worker an increased chance to produce under better conditions. I should say it is impossible to lay down a rule and say that a certain article is sold in this country more cheaply because it is affected by the rate of exchange. I have listened day after day to ascertain whether we could get any sure test of this question. I know that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell) not only gave us illustrations, but showed us some very good ones in his industries exhibition; but, as far as I could gather there, the people who benefited by the low prices were not the British consumers at all, but rather the middlemen who sold the article. They robbed the British public, as far as I could gather, of something like £50 on a £100 article. At the same time, it did not seem to me that the hon. Member laid his finger on the spot and said that the reason why that article is cheaper is because of the low rate of exchange. It may be that the article is cheaper because of the foreign policy of the Government itself, and that seems to me to be one of the most reasonable explanations. If the Government compel a country to give you something for nothing, and then you begin to grumble at the effect upon yourself, it does not seem to me to be very reasonable to say that it is because of the rate of exchange that they are able to sell in this country at a cheaper rate.
I want also, as a layman, to put this point. We have heard a good deal from time to time in this House about stabilising the exchanges in foreign countries. How are you going to stabilise the exchange? Is it by contracting the opportunities for export? It seems to me that along those lines you go from bad to worse. If you want to give this country a chance at all, the real chance that we shall have is in improving rather than in limiting our opportunities for export and
for dealing with these people. Regrettable as it may be that one country, may have an opportunity over another country, it does not seem to me that we are going to get anywhere by simply making vague statements as to what is the cause of articles coming in more cheaply. If a cheaper article comes into this country, the real cause is the condition of slavery that is being imposed upon certain classes of workers in those countries which are paying indemnities. That is affecting us. It led to the miners' trouble; it led to the wholesale breaking up of the shipbuilding industry; it may be that it will affect other industries. The only way in which we can deal with it is by frankly recognising that our neighbours' prosperity will be our prosperity. Instead of setting up limitations of this kind, we ought to break down every possible barrier and link ourselves with them in a common policy of improving the situation. I know that there are hon. Members who can deal with this question of exchanges in an expert way, but neither the Government nor any combination of experts in this country can lay its finger upon any particular article and say that that article is coming to this country more cheaply simply because of the low rate of exchange. The setting up of a barrier of this kind, instead of improving the rate of exchange in other countries, will keep them where they are, and even tend to make them worse; and so far as we do that we damage ourselves as well as the other countries.

Captain COOTE: I support this Amendment on the general ground that I think the Government have made a, fundamental mistake in putting down this Sub-section. I do not pretend in anyway to be an expert on exchanges I have heard many people talk about there, and there seems to me to be generally some flaw in their argument. But I believe it to be true that exchanges are not a cause but a symptom. It is not the fact that the exchanges are bad that causes trade to be bad; it is the fact that trade is bad that causes the exchanges to be bad. You will never get the exchange right until you get your trade right. I believe that that proposition is fundamentally true, and that is it controverted by this Sub-section which I am now opposing. If this Sub-section passes into law grave damage will be done. I am not so foolish as to suppose that the
figures one sees in the newspapers every day relating to the comparative values of the exchanges really reflect their true values. At the same time I do believe that, although the difference is not so big as one would be led to suppose by noticing, for example, that the exchange in Polish marks is 2,000 to the £, yet there is a sufficiently large difference in actual value to make a duty of this sort quite inoperative. If I was right in my original contention that exchanges are a symptom and not a cause, it is obvious that, if you deliberately adopt a plan which will and must, in so far as it is operative, perpetuate the exchanges in a bad condition, you are thereby taking steps, not to cure the disease, but rather to perpetuate it.
I do not believe that there is any need for this Sub-section at all. As the hon. Member (Mr. Lawson) has very truly said, you cannot lay your finger upon this or that particular class of goods or article and say that it is coming into this country and is being sold at prices below the cost of production because of depreciation of the exchange. It is impossible to do that. Even supposing that it were possible, to what quantity and what value of goods would this provision apply? I have here some figures relating to articles which might be said more especially to be affected by this Subsection. I take it that it is chiefly directed against Germany. That is what we are always told. In relation to Germany, I have the total value of the imports of all goods, except food and drink, imported into the United Kingdom for the year ending 31st December, 1920. They amounted to £28,319,000. Even if the whole of those imports were due to depreciation of the exchange, that, in itself, is not a very large quantity of goods to be imported into this country, and when you take into consideration the fact that it is impossible to divide that sum into categories and say that this is pure dumping, that is legitimate trading, and something else is due to depreciated exchange, then it seems to me, since you cannot do that, that there is no reason for this Sub-section at all. Let us work out the effect of the duty, supposing that it were operative. The country with a bad exchange is penalised if it attempts to export goods to this country. What does it do? If it can get its goods to another country where no such duty is
operating, and where the exchange is not depreciated, and if it can export its goods from that country to this country, then it will not have to pay duty on those goods. Therefore, it seems to me that the only effect of this duty will be that those countries whose exchanges are depreciated will send their goods, say, to America, where the exchange is against us, and those goods will he exported from America into this country, and no duty will be charged. Therefore, it would really be more logical of the Government, if they were attempting to deal with the exchanges at all, to put a tariff on goods imported from all those countries where the exchanges were against us instead of the countries where the exchanges were favourable. That is to say, it would really be more logical to put a tariff upon goods imported from America than on goods imported from Germany.
There is one practical example of what happens when you do that sort of thing. I believe there are countries which have tried this very plan of attempting to legislate against the effects of depreciated exchanges, and I believe in those cases precisely the effect which I have described has been produced, namely, that countries against whom this legislation is, aimed send their goods to countries where the exchange is unfavourable to the country which passes the legislation, and the goods get into the country without paying any duty, and, moreover, it merely increases the trade, so to speak, of the intermediary. For these three reasons: first of all, that it seems to me that this Sub-section will be inoperative; secondly, that, in so far as it is operative, its effect will be bad; and, thirdly, because, if it is operative, the effect will not be that which it is aimed to produce. I support the Amendment. I should like to refer to the arguments whereby this part of this legislation has been justified by the spokesmen of the Government. The Minister of Education had nothing to say about it except that there was an exchange problem, and it must be dealt with somehow. The Minister of Health said he could not contemplate thousands of men being thrown out of employment owing to collapsed exchanges. Nothing of the sort is happening. Even if this were an attempt to legislate intelligently for the future, I should not mind, but it seems to me that not only is it futile for
the present Government, but it is futile for the future. The effect must be bad, and I do not think this House should be asked to pass a piece of legislation which I do not believe the President of the Board of Trade believes in himself.

Sir W. BARTON: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) appealed for some expert on exchanges to get up and deal with the matter which he had unsuccessfully dealt with. If we had all the experts in London on this subject, I believe they would come very much to the same conclusion as he did in the end, because, at bottom, exchange between one country and another does not so much rest on currency as on the exchange of commodity for commodity. The whole question is one of the utmost difficulty to answer whether a low exchange is, in fact, an advantage to a country in exporting. I know it can be said that there is an external value to the currency, say, of Germany and an internal value, and the relation between those two things is constantly fluctuating. But we must remember that this same exchange which helps any country in its exporting, to an equal degree works against it in its importing, with the result that no country ever desires to have a low exchange. The Minister of Health, who took rather an active part in the Bill up to a certain stage, said that Germany was deliberately depreciating her exchange-—an ex parte statement of which he did not give us any proof—and since he made it I have been making such inquiry as I can to find whether, in fact, this is so. All the information I can get is that it is indeed contrary to the fact. Indeed, I think the Germans are far too scientific a nation, in trade as in all else, to resort to such a dangerous expedient in their national finance.
I look at the thing in this way. Exchange is not a cause at all; it is a kind of barometer indicating the economic condition at a particular time. Our interest is to lift the exchanges of the nations of Europe. That is undoubtedly the interest of this country as a great manufacturing nation. Again, the Minister of Health on one occasion in these Debates said that was what we desired, and that was our object. This legislation must, in point of fact, have quite a contrary effect. What I think must happen will be this. If you put on a tariff because of a depreciated
exchange the effect would be further to depreciate it, and if your tariffs were to be beneficial at all you would have to increase it to meet that lowered exchange, and you would find yourself in one of those vicious circles which we have found affecting our economic life during these latter days, and from which we are so desirous of delivering ourselves. Surely we have learnt the interdependence of nations and how closely the economic life of one nation is dependent on another. I am quite sure that no man looking at Europe at present can believe that there is deliverance for any one nation unless we can uplift the whole, and this proposal, I think, has been rather rashly entertained. I find at present that business people who at first were inclined to legislation of this kind, as time passes, realise that it is impossible to tell on what ground cheapness arises. It may be greater efficiency, it many be mass production, it may be one of many things. How are you to say that it is lowered exchange? But the words my hon. Friend proposes to omit are not exclusively connected with this matter of exchange. There are one or two other words I should like to draw attention to. It says:
At prices which, by reason of depreciation in the value in relation to sterling of the currency of the country in which the goods are manufactured, are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured.
Who is to say whether goods can be manufactured or not? It is a question which cannot be decided by the Board of Trade or by the Committee. You only realise what you can do by what you have done, and I defy any man to construe these words in such a way that it will be of any use in a court of law. This Clause, when it arises, will be one of the most troublesome things any committee of the Board of Trade can possibly be confronted with. Then it says, "profitably manufactured." What does "profitably" mean? Does it mean 5 per cent., 10 per cent., or 20 per cent., or what does it mean? These are words of an indefinite character, not at all suitable to be put into an Act of Parliament, and on those grounds and not because I am an expert in this matter, I think this Clause had better be omitted. But I want to make this appeal to my hon. Friend opposite. He has supported the Bill throughout because he feels that he and his friends have made pledges. Here
is a matter which has arisen since these pledges were given. He can take it purely and simply on its merits, and although I think the Government have rather an idea of pushing through the Bill almost without the alteration of a comma, here is a very serious matter on which, I am sure, if he would make some concession he would greatly help not only the Government, but many of his friends opposite who are anxious to support the Government but who, I am sure, he will compel reluctantly to vote against him if he maintains this provision.

Mr. G. TERRELL: I am anxious to make good what I fear I failed to do on the Second Beading, and explain, perhaps in a little greater detail, exactly why a depreciated exchange helps a country with a low exchange to send its goods to this country and to undersell her own workmen. It is evident, from the speeches which have been made in support of the Amendment, that neither of the three Gentlemen who have spoken really understands anything of the subject at all. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said he could not put his finger on the spot and show why an article from Germany was cheaper, and that he visited the collection of samples of German goods, and, as far as he could gather, it was the middleman who made a huge profit, and the only reason he seemed to be able to understand was that the goods were produced in Germany under what he described as slave conditions. I do not think that is the cause at all. The cause is entirely what is known as exchange. Before the War the mark was the equivalent of the British shilling. To-day the mark, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of the British penny. The skilled worker is paid 2s. an hour in this country. In Germany the skilled worker is paid 6 marks an hour. But when the product of 6 marks an hour is brought from Germany to England it represents labour in England at 6d. an hour in competition with our labour of 2s. an hour. If hon. Members had examined the lessons which were taught by that little collection of samples, they would have understood this and been absolutely satisfied with the evidence which was presented to them. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street spoke about goods produced under slave
conditions. Skilled labour at 6d. an hour in England would be considered slave conditions. The skilled worker who was only paid 6d. an hour would have a very rough time of it, and the lower grades of unskilled labour who would be paid proportionately less would be under a harder condition of life than any slave in any country under conditions of recent years. It must be clear to the Committee that when you have that form of competition you have to do something to meet it and to counteract it. There is very abundant evidence that the present rate of exchange is not the real value of the German mark, but an artificially created value for the purpose of Germany appearing before the Reparation Commission, and for making the best terms in connection with the heavy debt which Germany has incurred to practically the whole of mankind. Naturally Germany has not thought fit to show herself in her most prosperous condition. She has deliberately depreciated her exchange, with the result that we see the difference between internal and external value as between the mark in Germany and the mark out of Germany which you do not see as regards the goods of any other country. It is peculiar to Germany.
The hon. Member for Oldham (Sir W Barton) referred to the difference between the internal and the external value of the mark. It can be easily tested. Before the War the mark in England was equivalent to 1s. You cannot test it by a gold value to-day in England or in Germany because neither England nor Germany has any gold, but we can test it by food values, because both countries have to buy food. Before the War the mark was the equivalent of 1s. in this country. The cost of living in this country—I am giving the figures last December, but there has been a fractional alteration since then—had gone up two and a half times in cost last December, so that it took 2s. 6d. to buy food of the pre-War value of 1s. Try to buy that food with marks. The value of the mark in this country to-day is one penny, so that you would require 30 marks to buy food of the value of one mark before the War. Go to Germany with your mark. The, mark last December in Germany had depreciated about nine times. It took 9½ marks to buy the equivalent of one mark's worth of food before the War,
so that measured in marks and measured in food you require in England 30 marks to buy one mark's worth of food compared with pre-War, while in Germany you only require 9½ marks to buy the value of one mark before the War, a difference of three to one. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] An hon. Member says "No," but if he will take the trouble to examine the statement which I have made he will see that it is absolutely the case, and that shows that there is a great difference between the external and internal value of the mark. One can only account for that by suggesting that that has been deliberately created. No other country has done it. You may get slight fractional differences which vary from month to month through the dealings of banks and merchants in currencies, but in regard to Germany you have a deliberately depreciated value between the internal and external value of the mark.
That brings us back to the point where we started, and that is that the conditions of labour in Germany are such that she can completely under-sell us in this country so far as concerns goods for which she is self-contained in her raw materials. The moment she has to import goods she is at an enormous disadvantage; but the difference between Germany and this country is that Germany is largely self contained, and she is able to obtain on most advantageous terms raw materials from countries where the exchange is more depreciated than her own, namely, Poland and countries that once formed part of the Austrian Empire. She has the advantage that she is largely self-contained as regards her food, and she is able to obtain a supply of surplus foods from these other countries. The conditions which, exist to-day as between Germany and this country are widely different. We cannot afford to allow our exchange to be depreciated. We have to import more than half our foodstuffs. It is the highest importance to us to maintain our exchange at the highest possible level, otherwise we pay through the nose for what we have to buy. Germany's advantageous position, on the other hand, help her in her manufactures and her exports where she is self-contained in her raw materials. That was abundantly illustrated in the collection of samples to which I have referred. One could see at a glance that where Ger-
many was self-contained as regards raw materials she was able to produce goods at prices one-third our possible cost of production. That is due to the fact that her labour is 6d. an hour as against our labour of 2s. an hour.

Mr. SWAN: If you reduce the wages of the British workman below the living standard, will that relieve the situation?

Mr. TERRELL: If you reduce wages in this country to 6d. an hour you could compete, and compete well, but that is an absurd proposition to put forward. It is utterly unthinkable that our wages should be reduced to anything like that level. That is hardly the point with which we are attempting to deal in this Bill. This Bill is to provide some measure of compensation which will put the product of German labour, to some extent, on an equality with British labour, and the Sub-section, which it is proposed to leave out, is the essence of the Bill. It is of the utmost importance for labour in this country that these proposals should be put on the Statute Book. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) referred to imports from Germany of manufactured goods during last year, and I think he gave the figure its £28,000,000. That £28,000,000 is the value in marks converted into sterling at the present rate of exchange. The real value of those imports should be taken at something in the neighbourhood of three times that figure. It is not really £28,000,000 worth of imports, but it is three times that figure—somewhere between £80,000,000 and £100,000,000. That is a heavy load of manufactured material put into this country, and it was one of the main causes of the great unemployment from which we were suffering when, unfortunately, the coal dispute came upon us. The excessive taxation was another cause. This Bill only deals with goods which come in through the depreciated currencies. If the Bill is fairly applied, and if the Government would accept some Amendments which I have down on the Paper, it will go a long way to cure the unemployment, which is the result of imports from Germany and other countries.

8.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I appreciate the speech of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell), because, at any rate, he does answer arguments, and does remain to listen to the case put
against the Bill, in refreshing contrast to the empty Benches opposite. We have a right to complain of the little interest taken by the Committee when we are discussing the extremely complicated and difficult question of the exchanges. I agree with some of the remarks of the hon. Member with regard to the difference between the internal and external value of the exchanges. The Government do not seem to have considered that side of the question at all. I really think it has not. I wonder if it has struck the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his advisers that in a country where the rise in the cost of living is parallel with the fall in the exchange the manufacturer in that country has no advantage. For example, the French franc stands at 50 to the £ instead of 25. If the cost of living in France has doubled as the exchange has fallen the French manufacturer has no premium over the British manufacturer, because he has to pay his workmen more, unless he can depress their standard of living. Not only has he to pay his workmen more, but he has to pay more for everything he buys, and, therefore, he has to charge 50 francs instead of 25 francs in this country. It is where, on the other hand, the cost of living has not risen to the same extent as the exchange has dropped that the manufacturer has at first sight an advantage. That is the case in Germany. At first sight the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell) are fairly sound, but they are not arguments which commend themselves to the Government. They seem to think that because, for example, the French franc or the Belgian franc is down there is at once a great premium in favour of the Belgian or French manufacturer.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend has read what has been said on the subject.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Except for an hour or two this afternoon when I was unavoidably absent I have had the privilege of listening to all his speeches on this subject, but I have never heard my hon. and gallant Friend deal with this particular matter, and if he will later on show where he has dealt with that subject, I shall be extremely obliged. I have another criticism. It is admitted by the hon. Member for Chippenham that
the German manufacturer has to pay a much greater price for the articles he imports from abroad, and that therefore he is under some disadvantage. But, he says, Germany is so self-contained that it does not hit the German manufacturer very much. I wonder if our blockade had any effect on Germany at all. Were our efforts all wasted? It costs us many hundreds of millions and very great risks. Did it not matter whether cotton, rubber, oil, spelter and other things were prevented from going into Germany? Were they so self-contained that they could provide these things for themselves? We know perfectly well the thing is absurd. They are not self-contained, and during the War they were put to every sort of shift to try to make synthetic rubber and to do without copper for the driving bands of their shells and to get nitrates from the air, and so on. All these operations were tremendously expensive and altogether uneconomical. I suppose there are some cranks in this country who would like to grow cotton under glass because cotton is a key industry. I suppose it could be done, but it would be very expensive, and of course it would not pay. The same thing applies to the synthetic industries the Germans have developed. Everyone knows perfectly well that a North European country is dependent on other countries for certain tropical products, and Germany must import high-grade steel from Sweden and from Spain before she can compete with our steel manufacturers.
It is obvious that the German manufacturer is hit tremendously hard. Talk to any foreigner living in a country where the exchange is bad, to an Italian, to a Belgian, or to a Pole, and the great grievance he has, the great disquieting fact he has to face, is that his exchange is down and is doing harm to his country. I have never had an answer to this question. I would like to know if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department can give it. I have asked the Minister of Health, who is the great expert the Government now brings in on these discussions. But he is unable to tell me. I wonder if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is in a position to do so. If we are suffering so much because of our favourable exchange, why do not the Government depress the exchange and give manufacturers in this country the advantage of
a low exchange? You could easily do it. All you have to do is to set the printing presses to work, treble the wages of all the officials and all the Government employés, sailors, soldiers, police, give the unemployed £5 a week instead of 15s. You would very soon injure the credit of this country and depress the exchange. In fact, we are doing it just now. Our exchange is going down owing to various causes, but you could hasten the process, and make the English shilling worth Id. abroad.
If there is such an advantage in a depreciated exchange to the German, Polish, and Austrian manufacturer, if we really believe in that argument, we could easily put our manufacturers on a level with them, and then, of course, there would be no more unemployment, and we should be able to undercut our rivals in the foreign markets. But of course it is obvious, directly the proposition is broached, that this is ridiculous, and will not bear a moment's examination. I admit that in Germany the cost of living has not risen parallel with the fall in the exchange, and to that extent Germany has a slight advantage. The reason is that the German people were so injured by the blockade and by the War' that their standard of life was reduced to a very low level, and a slight improvement to-day pleases and satisfies them. Therefore the German working man has not demanded increases in wages corresponding to the fall in the German exchange. The German people have been cowed and beaten by the blockade and by the continued hostilities that they have not recovered anything like their pre-War standard of living. In our country the standard of living has gone up in consequence of the War; in Germany they have recovered about two-thirds, and they are rather pleased, and they are working very hard, and are very satisfied. For the moment Germany has the stimulus of defeat, while we have the disadvantage of the flush of victory, but presently that matter will adjust itself. The German is slowly recovering his standard of life, and the English people, all classes, are coming to the conclusion the we have got to be thrifty and hard working in the future. There has got to be a lower standard of life, certainly, in the upper classes in the lean years that are ahead. At the same time, there is nobody who will get up in this country and say he wishes to depress the standard of life of our working classes
to the standard of the German working man. Therefore, I think, the remedy is obvious. We must enable the Germans to get on their feet again. Then their exchange will adjust itself, and this awful spectre of German competition which has haunted hon. Members below the Gangway for the last 15 or 20 years will, I hope, be finally removed. In the meantime, this ridiculous proposal of the Government will only retard that process of recovery, and as long as we retard that process we will suffer here in this country.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: During the course of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell) he mentioned that in Germany wages were 6 marks an hour, and he said that that meant, translated at the present rate of exchange, 6d. an hour in this country. When he made that statement a number of my hon. Friends said, "No, no!" I would like to ask them seriously do they mean to say that 6 marks in Germany, translated at 240, marks to the £, do not mean 6d. in this country?

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Not 6d. in Germany.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: I said 6 marks in Germany, if my hon. and gallant Friend would do me the honour of listening. Translated at 240 to the £, that is worth 6d. in this country.

Mr. SWAN: When I asked the hon. Member for Chippenham if reducing the wages of the British working man to the standard of the German working man; would help us to compete with Germany he said, "Yes."

Mr. PENNEFATHER: I want to pin down hon. Members to this, that 6 marks an hour in Germany is equal to 6d. an hour in this country. There is the other point of reducing the wages of the working men in this country to 6d. an hour. The object of this Bill is to prevent that. The object of this very Clause that my hon. Friends are opposing is to prevent that, and if the hon. Gentlemen who are moving, seconding, and supporting this Amendment have their way, the effect will be to bring into this country more and more goods manufactured at the rate in our currency of 6d. an hour to compete with the wages of our working men here. I really believe that some of my
hon. Friends do not appreciate what they are doing. I would ask them if they are prepared to go down to their working class constituencies, and put the proposition to them in that way. I am preaching good, sound Free Trade doctrines. I will tell the Committee why. A few years ago at a large Free Trade banquet in the City of London one of the principal speakers made a very wise remark. He said:
We speak of exporting commodities. What do we mean? When we speak of exporting commodities we really mean that we are exoprting our labour. The more highly finished the commodities the more labour we export, and that is why we, are anxious to export our commodities, and the more highly finished the better.
If that is true of our exports to other countries it is equally true of their exports to us which become imports, and when you import these commodities you import labour and you are importing labour at 6d. an hour. This Clause is designed to reduce that. How my hon. Friends support an Amendment to cut out a provision which is protecting the working-class constituents, and how at the same time they call themselves representatives of the people, I cannot understand. Is it that we are still party politicians? I say, No! Away with all that. Let us be business men and consider the interests of our own workers and let us not be carried away by these theories. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Oldham (Sir W. Barton) is not here, because I would like to put a question to him. Suppose this Bill is not passed or that my hon. Friends have their way and delete this particular Clause in regard to depreciated exchanges, it would enable my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham to export yarn from his mill in Oldham to Germany, have it there converted into cloth, finished and printed, and brought back to this country. I have had proposals put before me months ago for doing something of that kind for British capital to manufacture goods only to the rawest point and then to send those goods to a country like Germany or Poland and have them finished there and brought back to this country. There is no Member who contra diets what I say.
If this Bill be not passed, and that is done to any extent in this country, it will mean taking advantage of depreciated exchanges to take labour and wages away from our workers in this country, and put
those wages into the pockets of the workmen in other countries, and that is supported by men who claim to represent our working classes. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that he could not understand why any country should wish to maintain a depreciated exchange. It is very simple. The fact is that the great bugbear of all the great manufacturers and combines in Germany, Poland, and Italy is that the rate of exchange should improve. That is very natural. Once a country has by various means arrived at a depreciated currency, if that country has large natural resources and if it has built up a certain amount of stability of commerce on that basis, it becomes a perfect bugbear to the people of that country that the exchange should suddenly rise, because the effect of a sudden improvement in the exchange is that their competitors would be able to buy cheaper raw material and able to sell at a price which would leave the people who hold stocks with the certainty of loss. Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that in a country like Germany, which has the mark at its present depreciated level, that may be quite a reasonable policy.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) said truly that the imports into this country from Germany in 1920 were only £28,000,000. The hon. Member for Chippenham pointed out the real fallacy of that argument in relation to the exchange. May I point out that during 1920 Germany had not got into her manufacturing stride, and had not yet satisfied the needs of her own people, but it is absurd to argue because Germany only sent £28,000,000 worth of goods in 1920 that she may not, unless we pass a Bill like this, send us a great deal more in 1921 and 1922 or 1923. We are not now legislating for the past. We are taking precautions for the years to come, and therefore an argument of that kind is of no avail. Another point made by my hon. and gallant Friend was, why should not a manufacturer, say, in Germany, send his goods to another country, and then those goods could be brought from that country to this country, thereby defeating the intentions of this Bill? The more I listen to speeches made against this Bill the more convinced I am that a great many hon.
Members have not read it. Anybody who will take the trouble to read it will see that precautions are taken against that and that the Committee can take steps to defeat anything of the kind. I have no doubt that the actual modus operandi will be by means of Consular certificates.
When I hear hon. Members like the hon. and gallant Member for Hull say that they have studied this Bill, and listened to every speech on it, I think that they hardly do themselves justice. I think that there would be more excuse for them if they admitted frankly that they had not grasped it, because they all talk at large as if every import into this country from every country where the exchange was depreciated would be subject to the duty, but if they read the Bill they will see that that is not in the Bill. The Bill merely says that if a case is made out that by reason of the depreciated exchange employment in some industry is being seriously affected, then in that case only this duty shall be imposed. To hear the speeches of hon. Members you would think that everything except food and drink would be subject to this tax. That is not so. A case has to be made out. Do my hon. Friends who represent labour really say if unemployment in an industry is proved before a committee to have resulted from the depreciated exchange, "Never mind, let the unemployment go on. We will not lift a finger to stop it." Is that the story with which they will go to their platforms and meet their constituents? No. I do believe that if our Friends on the Labour Benches, and the Mover and Seconder and supporter of this Amendment, give the matter a little consideration in that light they will see that they are moving to delete something which aims at reducing unemployment and preventing a drastic cut in wages, and that they will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. MYERS: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Terrell) in his somewhat confusing analysis of the relative value of the mark. In my judgment, many of the things ha put forward were fallacious. I will take up one point, and try to state it in rather a simpler form. We have been told that the importation of goods into this country is the importation of so much labour. With that suggestion I entirely agree. It must operate also the other way round,
and any goods that we export from this country must, in the main, be an exportation of labour. When the mark represented one shilling of English money and we imported an article from Germany at the price of 10 marks, it required the equivalent in English money of half a sovereign, but, if owing to the depreciation in exchange or any other factor, that same article is imported into this country at an equivalent of 5s. in English value, the worker in this country has to expend only 5s. worth of labour to get the article, though he had originally to expend 10s. worth of labour. All the way round, whatever the causes are, the British worker and the British consumer get the advantage of the cheapness of the article when it lands in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "He loses his labour."] It is not a question of losing his labour. He gets a commodity for the expenditure of half the labour that was necessary before.
We were also informed that if the worker in this country would accept a reduction in wages to 6d. an hour, a solution or a contribution towards a solution of the problem might be found in that direction. That is another start on a vicious circle. Let us suppose that that condition prevailed. The manufacturers and employers in this country would get their commodities produced more cheaply and they would be able to find a market for those goods. But there would be some return in commodities for the goods so sold. Who is going to consume those commodities? Not the British labour that is working at 6d. an hour. The higher the wages of the British worker the greater his consuming capacity. If the British worker worked for nothing or at a very small wage, and played into the hands of the producer, who would sell his goods in the neutral markets of the world, he would find himself handicapped very quickly by depression in trade. The present depression in trade is a result of the operation of that principle. It is due to the fact, not that it is difficult to produce goods at a low level, but that it is difficult to find consumers.
This Clause is loose in two or three places. It contains quite a number of contradictions. It fails to distinguish between the factors that make for cheapness. In one place it might be depreciated exchange and in other circum-
stances other factors might contribute to that end. The Clause specifies manufactured goods. If this is such an exceedingly good thing for manufactured goods, why not include all sorts of commodities? If the imposing of this tax is to bring such great advantages to the country, why do we not embrace every article that comes into the country? The Clause is loose in another direction. It fails to take into account any variations in the rate of exchange in different countries. The Clause endeavours to impose a tax of one-third of the value upon articles which come into this country at a cheap rate due to depreciated exchanges. It has already been stated that the collapse of the exchanges is greater in one country than in another. But the tax is one-third of the Value of the goods. Obviously we are going to impose taxation which will operate inequitably as between one country and another. In industry, in commerce, and in the diplomatic world we shall be perpetuating conflict when we ought to be turning our attention to suffering and healing.
I want to make a general proposition, and I invite a reply from those people who believe in protectionist duties. The more goods that come into this country and the greater the volume of and the cheaper those goods, the better it is for this country. I invite a protectionist to repudiate that argument. Whether because of depreciated exchange or any fact whatever, the cheaper the goods and the greater the volume of goods the better. The great monopolists do not think that way. We have had instances innumerable where monopolists have restricted production because a plentiful supply interfered with profits.

Mr. JESSON: Will the hon. Gentleman mention one industry that is a monopoly?

Mr. MYERS: We need not enter on that argument. I refer to monopolies as currently understood. When one particular concern corners the production and distribution of an article it comes within the interpretation of what is recognised as a monopoly. If we are seeking to secure a plentiful supply of commodities for the people, the more we get of those commodities and the cheaper they are the better it is for the country as a whole. It may be here and there a partial disadvantage. I will concede the point to the Protectionists that they will be able to
put their fingers upon a particular industry which is adversely influenced by the importation of a particular commodity at a cheap rate. Taking industry as a whole, if we had to exclude importation on that account, the general export trade of the country would suffer to a like degree. When we balance the operation of the disadvantages to a particular trade with the advantages to the whole export trade of the country, all the weight is on the side of the benefits which go to the export trade in general, and they must ultimately be to the advantage of the particular isolated trade which was affected in the first instance. Depreciated exchanges, as is submitted by this Clause, may be one factor in bringing cheap goods into this country and another factor may be underpaid labour and bad conditions of employment abroad. There is a remedy for both these, but that remedy is not inside this Bill. If labour conditions, such as we have been told prevail in India, are competing unfairly with the cotton trade in this country, the obvious move is in the directions of applying some such machinery as is provided by the Washington Convention and raising the standard of labour conditions in different part of the world. If the importation of these goods is due to the fact that exchanges have depreciated, experts have pointed out to us a way of dealing with this question. A Commission, which sat some time ago, composed of bankers and financial experts, indicated very definitely how we ought to tackle the exchanges problem in order to make for greater stability.
One thing is certain: if we impose a tax upon imports coming from those countries where the exchange is depreciated and prevent commodities coming from those countries we injure our export trade. The collapsed exchanges can only be restored by the expansion of trade and the extension of productive activity in this country. The restrictions which this Bill and similar proposals seek to impose narrow down the sphere of operations and restricts the volume and the flow of trade, and plays into the hands of certain sections of the community—those monopolies that I have spoken of—and assists them to maintain their prices and profits by reason of the limited output of the commodities in which they deal. What we have got to do, if we
desire to stabilise the exchanges, is to open out the activities of this country rather than restrict productive activity. We have no right by restrictive methods to encourage high profits arising from the troubles of other people. We have to assist that tendency in trade and commerce which will give returns in profit upon efficiency and effective business organisation. This Bill is one more artificial attempt to prop up the monopolies of this country and penalise the consuming public. A depreciated exchange injures the country in which it prevails, but if, as a result of that, goods are sent cheaply to other countries, then it operates to the advantage of those other countries. When we want to balance things we have to encourage the freer flow of trade and the more abundant production of commodities, both in this and other countries, and not endeavour to proceed by the artificial methods proposed in this Bill.

Mr. T. A. LEWIS: When this Bill was before the House on Second Reading I endeavoured to make it clear that I supported it because I had given two pledges to my constituents at the last General Election. One was to support the proposal dealing with key industries, and the second was to support the proposal dealing with restrictions in the matter of dumping. Here we come upon a subject which stands on a different footing from either of those two matters. I made no reference at all in my election address or in my speeches to any proposals intended to deal with the question of collapsed exchanges. Therefore I cannot see my way clear to opposing the Amendment which is now before the Committee. My reasons may be stated very briefly. If the object of these proposals is to prevent these goods coming in from what I may term enemy countries at a very cheap cost owing to the condition of the exchanges, I am afraid a 33⅓ per cent. duty will not achieve that object. As has been mentioned earlier in this Debate, 300 per cent. or 400 per cent. is much more likely to be necessary to keep out cheap goods such as those likely to come in, from Germany, for instance. In the second place, if these proposals are intended to deal with the wider, larger, and more fundamental question of the stabilisation of exchanges, then this is the wrong way to set about the matter. The problem of exchanges is one of the most baffling ever brought before
the Parliament of any country, but there is one point upon which we are all unanimous. They will never be rectified except by a free and copious flow of trade between one country and another. It seems to me by putting on a duty of any kind you will restrict that flow of trade and do something which must militate against the complete restoration of the pre-War conditions of exchange. The question of the protection of particular key industries is not for us a fiscal question at all. We are dealing with the question of key industries from the standpoint of the security of this country. Arguments which have been applied in support of this proposal do not really obtain to the same degree as they did in regard to the key industries.
Take, again, the question of dumping. I believe that in this House, variegated as it is in its opinions and views, there is no division at all as to what I might call the political and commercial immorality of dumping, and I think we are all prepared to do anything reasonable to prevent the dumping of goods in the country to flood our markets with a view to destroy some of our industries. The questions of key industries and dumping stand apart and on a different footing from the question we are now dealing with. I feel that in travelling along this road we are resuscitating old controversies. Nobody could sit in the Chamber for the last three-quarters of an hour without becoming conscious of the fact that he has been travelling back to pre-War days. Many of the speeches which have been made, and I would almost say most of the arguments which have been used, have had a good old pre-War ring about them. We were back again in the whirling days of the fiscal controversies, and if there is one fate I want to avoid it is to go back to those days and controversies. I am sure that the huge majority of the people of this country do not at present want to revive that controversy, at any rate in its old shape and form and violence, and as far as I can see, as we proceed to discuss this particular proposal, we cannot keep away from the old paths that we used to tread so merrily and so noisily at that time, because therefore these proposals are an attempt to prevent unemployment and to help employment in this country by protective tariffs, I am afraid I cannot support them. I have always disbelieved in that method
of the promotion of employment. Also because I think it is bound to fail as an attempt to stabilise exchanges on any appreciable scale at all, I am compelled to vote against it.

Mr. WISE: I suppose the problem of exchange is one of the most difficult that we have to deal with after the War, and it is difficult because so few people really deal in exchange and understand its exact significance. Exchange is simply supply and demand. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) referred to a monopoly, but I would like to give him an instance of what really is a monopoly at the present time. I refer to the exchange between London and New York. The London-New York Exchange went to $4 quite recently and fell back to $3.725. It fell back because that exchange is not a London-New York exchange at present: it is a European-New York exchange at present. I had a question down to-day to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any part of the reparation payment made by Germany on the 31st May was deposited in the United States of America, and, if so, what was the amount and what was the bank. The reply was:
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is informed by the British delegates to the Reparation Committee that the amount received in dollars from the German Government un to the 31st May was 35,733,000 dollars, and since that date the dollar receipts amount to a further 12,000,000 dollars, and those sums were deposited with the Federal Reserve Bank, New York, to the account of the Reparation Committee.
The purchase of those dollars practically means that any commodities that we had to buy from New York would cost this country more. That is a monopoly, and I could give other instances in exchange of a monopoly, but they are more or less similar to the European-New York dollar exchange. The hon. Member for Spen Valley stated that there were not purchasers for our goods. I contend that there are purchasers for our goods if we have credit, and it is only through credit and the stabilisation of the exchange that you can get the confidence to restore that equilibrium of exchange which is so necessary to give the confidence between the purchaser and the seller of the commodity.

Mr. MYERS: I intended to say, and I think I did say, that if our workmen were working for low wages our pur-
chasing power would diminish to that extent.

Mr. WISE: I agree there, but I was dealing with what the hon. Gentleman said a little later in his speech. I understood him to say what I have stated. With regard to Germany and the possible appreciation of their currency, Germany is in a worse position to-day than at the time since the Armistice. It is because her Budget does not balance, and she only balances that Budget with paper currency, and the more paper currency you put out the worse is your exchange and the worse becomes the mark. It is not a case of labour being employed for sixpence. It is because the Budget does not balance and the paper currency of Germany has gone up to 72 milliard paper marks. You may take other countries such as Poland. Poland is in a worse state even than Germany. You cannot get that currency right, and it is owing to this great depreciation of paper currency and European countries not balancing their Budgets that I support this paragraph (b), because I feel it protects our workmen and it means fair or fairer competition in this way than in any other.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have had the honour of having one or two strenuous encounters with the Minister of Health on this question of collapsed exchanges, and I have always approached these encounters with very great hesitation, because he is undoubtedly an authority on these questions, and it would be rash on my part to pit my very slight experience against the great weight of his, but I think we are entitled to ask the Government to-night whether, in all the circumstances, and looking to the various Debates we have had on this subject, they really intend to proceed with this hopeless and useless part of their Bill. I know at once that there is an apparent weakness on our side of the House when we are confronted with an argument of the following kind. The Government say that employment in this country is suffering because of the introduction of goods at very low prices, in part, at least, due to the collapsed exchanges; and then they ask us, in the second place, whether we are prepared to sit down and wait for the natural operation of things in recovery. Their third point is, Do you not agree that
it would be far better to introduce some device of almost any kind, if it has any hope of success at all, in order to deal with this state of affairs? An argument of that kind, when we have such a serious state of unemployment as we have, is undoubtedly very impressive, and I would be prepared to support the Government in this proposal if there was the slightest chance of this particular Clause in the Bill doing anything to help unemployment at the present time.
The more we argue, the more we investigate this proposal, the clearer does it become that so far from helping unemployment, it is going to aggravate the disease. Let us be perfectly fair in our view on this question of collapsed1 exchanges. The right hon. Gentleman opposite would be the very last to deny the weight and authority of the Cunliffe Committee, to which reference has been made. It is no reply at all to suggest that the Cunliffe Committee investigated the matter at a time when the situation was different from to-day, because, in point of fact, the Cunliffe Committee issued its final report on 3rd December, 1919, when the situation was very difficult, when we were more than a year from the Armistice, and when many of the problems we are now discussing came under review. What did they suggest as a remedy for the collapsed exchanges?
First of all, they directed attention to the importance of sound currencies within each country. I am going to ask any hon. Member of the Committee to-night what this proposal of the Government will do to improve the currency within any country in Europe? How do we improve a currency? By giving the country a fair chance to conduct its industry and commerce, and to get it out of the artificial conditions of war obligations, and burdens and debt, and everything like that. Yet here is a proposal which is to be a restriction on trade, and is intended to be a restriction on trade, and must raise prices, and to that extent compels the Government of these countries not to reduce, but, I should say, actually to increase currency by impeding normal recovery. So that actually there is no remedy for one of the fundamentals of the collapsed exchanges, namely, a sound currency within each country; it is not to be found within the proposals of this Bill.
In the second place, the Cunliffe Committee went on to suggest that a very great deal could be accomplished by the cessation of Government borrowing, and also by the greatest public and private economy. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly frank and candid in the reply which he made in a previous Debate. He said that undeniably the tendency of this must be to raise prices. He said that quite frankly. Here is the Cunliffe Committee laying down on the one side, with all the great weight of expert knowledge, the need of public and private economy which cannot be helped by raising prices, and on the other hand the Bill declaring that its object is to raise those prices! On that ground alone this part of the Bill stands absolutely condemned.
I am going to ask Members of the Committee to consider one or two questions from a rather different aspect which perhaps is even more important than some of the questions which so far I have tried to discuss. I want to ask the Government again to-night how they can reconcile this Bill with the Reparation policy? On that point a very great deal has been made of the state of affairs in Germany. No doubt there are collapsed exchanges elsewhere. But the right hon. Gentleman himself, in his previous replies, spoke of Germany manufacturing paper currency and depreciating the exchange, and all the rest of it. I do not think it will be seriously disputed that the real object at the back of the minds of the Government in this particular portion of the Bill is Germany. No doubt other countries so far—but Germany forms the bulk of the problem in this respect. It so happens that it is from Germany that we are quite properly expecting very large reparation. The Government directs attention first of all to the depressed state of labour in Germany at the present time. It sees that there there are millions of people working under arduous conditions, and turning out commodities the prices of which we cannot compete against in this country. I think there is something unreal and wrong in that argument, because we must remember, first of all, that Germany is a country which, while deserving to suffer heavily, lies under tremendous penalties and burdens at the present time which means, of course, that these have to be borne in a very large measure
by the millions of the working population. That is a temporary state of affairs. There can be very little doubt recovery will be found in the records of the recent industrial conditions in Germany, and even now is being found in industrial Germany that will go far to remove at least part of the argument on which the Government have founded this portion of their Bill.
9.0 P.M.
Take the other case—the main case of the reparation itself. I do not for a moment suggest that I am in any way an expert in this matter, but at least we have got the reparation fixed, and it falls into two portions. One portion is £2,500,000,000. The payment of this has to be made over a period of 37 years. There is another contingent portion of about £4,000,000,000. Excluding altogether the second portion and taking the first, we must remember that part of it falls to be paid under a system of 26 per cent. of German exports. If this Bill is to succeed the goods must be excluded from this country. Germany must be prevented from exporting these goods, and to that extent this Bill operates directly against reparation by Germany. There is not the slightest doubt about that. It is being argued on both sides in Germany, and it has been canvassed and debated by perfectly impartial people in this country. I have no respect for Germany's conduct during the War, but I am going to say this, however unpopular it may be tonight, having fixed our reparation from Germany, having embarked upon a system of payment—which may be right or wrong—your next duty is to give Germany a fair chance to pay that money. That is, I think, a reasonable and sound proposition.
What is Germany's position in this matter? Take the state of affairs in 1913. I think I am correct in saying that in that year Germany had an adverse balance in trade. She safeguarded her position so far by her invisible exports, like the invisible exports, the shipping and other services, of this country. That form of her enterprise has disappeared with her mercantile marine. To that extent she is weaker. In the second place, her territory, and part of the most valuable of her territory, has been taken from her. There again you have an aggravation of Germany's internal burden, which I think this country must keep in mind in considering problems of the nature we are discussing.
These are very substantial handicaps in the payment of reparation by Germany, and these go very, very far indeed to make us look carefully at any proposals, under the guise of helping collapsed exchanges, which are going to penalise the exports of the German people. I feel quite sure that these arguments will command some reply from the Government on this occasion. Let us, however, look very briefly, and in conclusion, at the other part of the German reparation case and view this problem of exports and collapsed exchanges in that way. The payment of the other portion of £4,500,000,000, or whatever it may be, depends very largely on a test. That is the test of Germany's economic recovery. The test is to be taken by the 26 per cent. of Germany's exports, which the Government presumably will view over the period of years that it is to be in operation, and on the record of which they and other countries will see whether Germany will be in a position to pay the far greater part of the reparation to which I have referred. Here is a Bill for dealing with collapsed exchanges which stops the exports of that country. If the Bill is succeeding it must have that result.
There is not the slightest doubt that it cute across the immediate policy of reparation economically; in the second place, it cuts across the contingent part based on the record of 26 per cent. of the exports which Germany will pay from time to time during the 37 years. The right hon. Gentleman in one of his replies spoke of the manufacture of a paper currency, as if any country in its senses would go on manufacturing a paper currency unless it was driven to it. The only effect of rapid increase of paper currency is to drive up prices in Germany and spoil her chances of industrial, recovery. My right hon. Friend will know that according to the speeches of the German Chancellor and others the Germans are making desperate efforts to work back to a sound system of finance in Germany, and I think it is bad business for us to do anything in trade which is going to hinder that effort on her part to recover. If the Government press this Bill we shall have to vote against it, but at least let the Government take out this mischief of the collapsed exchanges, which is false to the Cunliffe Report and the policy of repara-
tion, and which is opposed to a return of that free flow of European trade upon which our common recovery depends.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken commenced by saying that he usually hesitated to take part in these Debates, but I see no reason why he should hesitate on this subject, because he has put certain aspects of this question before us with a moderation and lucidity which we all acknowledge, and I shall endeavour to reply to his arguments. What strikes me, in all the discussions which have taken place on this Section, has always been that there is a great deal of common ground on both sides on general principles. Hon. Members, who criticise this part of the Bill. never seem to direct themselves either to the Bill itself or to the purpose for which it is being enacted. We have had very interesting discussions on the subject of exchanges, and we have had repeated certain elementary axioms that we want to stabilise exchanges and bring the balance of trade to a more normal position. No one seems to have addressed himself to what induced Germany to take the steps they have done to meet the abnormal circumstances which exist, and which will continue, according to the best financial advice, for a considerable number of years. That is the real problem.
What are you going to do during these abnormal circumstances? I look at this question from that point of view. I would lay down the general doctrine that the manufacturers and workmen of this country cannot be expected by the consumers to carry on their industries with any help or assistance from the State under normal conditions, and they cannot ask for anything to be done for them under ordinary conditions of trade. On the other hand, I would ask, is it fair, reasonable or wise to invite either manufacturers or workmen in this country engaged in an effective industry either to carry on the impossible, or to continue a hopeless struggle of competition which they cannot meet, not because of inefficiency or want of management or want of industry or because of rates of wages, but because of exchange conditions such as never before existed and which cannot possibly be met by them. That is a question with which hon. Members ought to deal. If they say, "Oh, we do not mind
a certain number of industries going out of existence," I say that is not our policy. This is a very serious question, and but for that fact it would not be worth the time we are spending upon it. You may say that some of these industries would disappear and that the workmen engaged in such industries would find employment in other channels.
The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) pointed out that although you may lose in one direction you may gain by your exports in another, but I question whether you should extinguish industries in this country even to benefit your exports. That is a question to which we ought to have some reply, but we have not up to the present got it. I am very familiar with all the old arguments of the fiscal controversy which I have used hundreds of times and from which I do not depart to-day. We are now dealing with special circumstances. The question we have to consider is whether the special circumstances do or do not deserve special treatment. I admit frankly that if you give time enough the exchanges may improve, but what is to happen to the patient while this is going on? That question is not answered by general arguments, by general phraseology, or a sudden discovery of differences in regard to internal and external exchanges.
The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has raised a very good argument on the question of the reparation policy, but that is the policy of the Allies, and not of the Government. The question of the indemnity was laid down at Versailles, and therefore it is not one Government, but the Allies generally, who laid down that policy. The hon. Member says that Germany must export her manufactures in order to pay her reparation liabilities, but it does not follow that we should receive all the German goods—some of which should go to our Allies—to the detriment of our industry. America and other countries are rearranging their tariffs, and is it to be contended that we are to be the only country which is to receive an unrestricted supply of German goods? I would point out further that it always seems to be assumed in these controversies that if Germany had to pay no reparation she would not export. What an extraordinary idea! Of course Germany will export just as much as she possibly can, and if the Allies took no reparation the only difficulty would be
that Germany would be likely to become more powerful than themselves. I am therefore left cold by the idea that the reparation policy of the Government is producing all those evil effects. The volume of the German export trade is limited by her maximum capacity to manufacture and sell, and from all the information I have received from people who have recently been in Germany I gather that that country is doing an exceedingly good trade, and that in Germany there is a much smaller number of men unemployed than we have here. No doubt their wages are lower and their standard of living is lower. If we like to live on substitutes in this country, if we like to lower our standard of living enormously, we can also increase our exports considerably. In the big hotels in Germany they are still using paper napkins and tablecloths. The German people are also using substitutes for leather. I hope we shall never come down to their standard of living. It would be a terrible thing if we who won the War were to be pushed down to the same level as the people who have lost it.
The people in this country have suffered much, but the reparation policy of the Government is not responsible for that. This Bill is an attempt to divert a catastrophe. That is the whole object of it. I have not claimed, and it has never been claimed, that the proposed duty is so great as to prevent all importation. What it attempts to do and what it probably will do will be to ease the situation during the period while the exchanges are becoming stabilised. The object is to try and flatten out the curve. We have felt that we ought to try and keep going industries which are threatened by this enormous flood of imports, and if we do not succeed in doing that the Bill will be useless. After all, hon. Members can only prophesy what will be the result. They cannot say for certain. The Bill has not yet been tried. It is not yet in operation. It does not seem to be clearly understood by some of its critics. The hon. Member for Spen Valley talked about monopolies and profiteering under this Bill. But can any one prove that by reason of the depreciation in the exchange goods are going to be produced in Germany at prices at which they cannot be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom. It seems to be suggested that if we cannot manufacture at profiteering
prices we cannot manufacture at a profit at all. But only in cases where our industries are seriously affected will this Bill become operative.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman is overlooking the words "or likely to be seriously affected." There is our difficulty.

Sir A. MOND: It will not be for the Board of Trade to decide; it will be for this House to do that. I am endeavouring to answer the suggestion that this Bill would establish monopolies and encourage profiteering.

Dr. MURRAY: How do you define "profit"?

Sir A. MOND: I should define it as reasonable prices, which would make people very reluctant to shut down their established works. Most people, I imagine, are willing to carry on established works at practically the overhead charges. Of course, they expect to make some profit.

Dr. MURRAY: A hundred per cent?

Sir A. MOND: We cannot carry on a discussion like that. It is a serious subject. It must not be assumed that everybody is going to be entirely unreasonable. What would be said if someone came forward and asked to have the duty put on in order that he might make 100 per cent. profit? Nobody in this country would venture to appear before a body of his fellow-countrymen with a proposal of that kind. This Bill is really a protection against extreme cases. If the danger does not arise so much the better; but if it does arise we ought to have in our hand a weapon to deal with it. Unless we have that weapon it may be too late. It has been stated that Germany deliberately appreciated her paper currency in order to foster her export trade. What I say is that the German Government, instead of imposing taxation and endeavouring to get her budget to balance, which she ought to have done long ago, has adopted the opposite course, and I have been informed by financiers of considerable experience in the City, who have been in contact with a large German bank, that the German policy has been to foster her export trade by giving bounties, discriminating
between her internal and external trade. That economic theory may operate for a time. It will not operate for ever. The German manufacturer has been operating, not on the difference between the German exchange and our exchange, but on the difference between the German mark inside Germany and the German mark outside Germany. I think he is now beginning to realise that that policy is a suicidal one. The hon. Member referred to the Cunliffe Committee. The Committee estimated that the exchanges would be practically almost stable to-day. We have had three years in which we have been patiently waiting for the exchanges to improve. We have had three years in which we have stood by and done nothing, listening to the experts, who have told us that if we would only leave things alone they would get better. Unfortunately, they have not got better, but that is not through our fault.

Captain BENN: Oh, yes, it is.

Sir A. MOND: No, really. It is not due to our foreign policy that Czechoslovakia and Poland, who have never bought any goods of us, are in a bad state now. That is not due to unemployment, and the hon. and gallant Member must drop that argument. There is a great slump in America, and 4,0000,000 men are unemployed there to-day. That is in a country where they have no Imperial policy and no Reparations policy, or anything of that kind. There is a much larger cause at work. The fall in purchasing power since the War has been very much greater than was expected, and the recovery has been much slower. It will remain slow for many years to come, in the view of a number of people best able to judge.

Dr. MURRAY: The Prime Minister said differently.

Sir A. MOND: Perhaps he did. We have all had hopes and expectations for a quicker recovery. There is not a single business man in this country or out of it who has not been taken aback by the depression and the slump. Even the wisest and most experienced scarcely know how things are going to turn out. Naturally, the Prime Minister takes his advice on these subjects from people who think they know. The hon. Member does not suggest that the Prime Minister could be wiser on the question of trade
than the whole commercial element of the world. He can only take the advice given him at the time, and the current opinion at the time.
There is another point I would like to put to the hon. Member who spoke last. He talked about the Germans exporting goods. It is also a question of what kind of goods the Germans export. The Bill deals with manufactured goods, but there are many other kinds of goods, which we may perhaps have from Germany, not affected by this measure, which would influence the German exchange. There is potash, timber and sugar, which Germany used to export to us, which are not covered by this thing at all.

Captain BENN: Timber is covered.

Sir A. MOND: No.

Captain BENN: If the right hon. Gentleman will look, he will see that it applies to all articles except food or drink.

Sir A. MOND: Manufactured.

Captain BENN: No, it does not say anything about manufactured.

Sir A. MOND: It says
manufactured in a country outside the United Kingdom.
Really, the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to read the Bill. Therefore there are these other things they can export. I say that to the hon. Member, because I do not disagree with some of the arguments he advanced. I do not disagree with the idea that Germany should have a fair chance of recovering herself, but I entirely disagree that Germany should be allowed to recover herself entirely at our expense, or at the expense of the industries of this country. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. T. A. Lewis) said he did not object to protection against dumping, but he objected to these provisions in regard to collapsed exchanges. If you dump under a collapsed exchange or under paragraph (a), the effect is the same, only the dumping under the collapsed exchanges is rather worse. Would any hon. Member get up and say that if the Germans put an export bounty of thousands of marks per ton on steel exported to this country, which would cause our steel works to close, that he would not want to stop that? That is what is going to happen.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is not possible.

Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member for Pontypridd did not object to key industries, but secondary industries in their way are more important than key industries. If this country had to deal with the question of defence when in that position it would be helpless. Imagine Great Britain unable to turn out a single shell or gun or armour plate. We have people who still complain in this country that there is no need to have that. We are told it does not matter about iron, it can all go, as far as they are concerned.

Dr. MURRAY: What about wheat?

Sir A. MOND: We have to deal with one thing at a time. I do not think the country or hon. Members would take this view if they really visualised that state of things. It is only because they get their minds a little bit fogged with exchange terms.

Dr. MURRAY: Like your old speeches.

Sir A. MOND: I never had to deal with a situation of this kind before. We have never had a position in this country in which any one of our great stable, industries was threatened with being driven out of existence.

Captain BENN: That is what Mr. Chamberlain used to say.

Sir A. MOND: I do not care what anybody used to say; we have to deal with this question now. For anyone to say that he is prepared to support—[Interruption]—I must really ask hon. Members not to interrupt, because it is really difficult to carry on any connected speech under such circumstances.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: That is the object of the interruption.

Sir A. MOND: I do not say that. We have to deal with what is a bounty fed importation from other countries, and some steps must be taken in order to equalise conditions and keep our industries in existence until more normal relations exist. I should have thought such a proposal would have met with no opposition from any part of the Committee. It offends against no principle. It is laying down no permanent change of fiscal policy.
It is dealing with an extraordinary situation in a manner which may not be entirely effective, but is as effective as we can make it. It may not be entirely scientific, but it is as practical as we can make it. We might have schedules and scales fluctuating from day to day, and calculated by mathematicians, which would be of a more precise character, and we should like to adopt them, but the practical facts show that that kind of method, although very good on paper, would be much more hampering to trade than the one we have adopted. We have adopted a method which is workable, and one which we hope will achieve some result, and will encourage the discouraged traders, manufacturers and workmen of this country, who have, surely, suffered enough and have experienced enough difficulties in the last twelve months. I have heard hon. Members say that they do not believe that a low rate of exchange acts as an export bounty. One hon. Member described it as a symptom. But I have known plenty of cases in which the most extraordinary things have happened in industries about which I used to know something. England used to be a great exporter of copper sulphate to Italy and France, and used to be able to compete very well with French and Italian manufacturers, Last year, owing to the tremendous fall in the Italian exchange, we saw the extraordinary phenomenon of Italy, who used to be an importer of copper sulphate, actually exporting copper sulphate to France. It is useless to tell people who know what I may call the daily details of these matters that exchange is a symptom, that it is a question of confidence. Exchange is a hard daily business fact that has to be reckoned with.
Because that makes it difficult for us to do any exporting business, it is surely all the more important that we should try and retain, at any rate, our home trade. You cannot do an export business without a home trade. There is not the slightest doubt that, without the solid basis of home consumpiion, your export trade would simply be a flower without any stem or roots. If you allow the home trade to be cut away, the export trade will follow. That being the case, you are in duty bound to take the best steps you can, and I contend that we have endeavoured to do that in a manner as little troublesome and as little difficult
as the difficulties of the situation will allow. The Amendment of my right hon. Friend later on the Paper cuts out at good many of the questions which were raised in former Debates as to small differences of exchange. Everyone agrees that we do not want to deal with merely small differences. It is where you get deep, fundamental divergencies, of a character so important and so enduring that they do seriously threaten the industry and employment in this country to a really important extent, that we say we must, at any rate until things become more firmly established, endeavour to maintain that equilibrium to the best of our ability, in the hope that better financial conditions in other countries, and the realisation of the necessity of balancing budgets which is slowly dawning on foreign States, will come about. When those conditions come about, no one will be more pleased than I shall. I am certain that the majority of the people of this country will be glad to get back to those conditions of entirely free, unfettered and unhampered trade under which our great commercial system has been built up for so many years.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I congratulate the Conservative Tariff, Reform Members of the Government of which my right hon. Friend is so distinguished a Member, on the complete development of his fiscal faith from that of an unmistakeable Free Trader to that of a full-blown Tariff Reformer. Hardly any of the arguments that I used to hear him refute when I was sitting with him on that side of the House, or joined with him on platforms, have been missing from his present speeches on this subject. The most familiar of them is the great danger to our industries. How well we remember the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain stating, one after the other, the industries that would go. Glass would go, cotton would go, and the turn of the others would come. There it was, almost in the same words. Truly, these are strange times in which we are living. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will carry those beliefs and convictions of his on to the platform in his own constituency, and, no doubt, in a campaign throughout the country for further steps in laying the foundations of the full system of Protection, to which he is quite obviously, in my opinion, a complete convert. One of his main points against hon. Members
on this side is that their arguments are generalities; but was there ever a more general range of argument than he himself developed? He was asked, time and again, "What is your case? What are your industries?"—and he could not produce one. The duty of the Government, when it produces a Bill of this kind, is to be found it on specific, concrete cases, and not on vague generalities and fears and dreads of what is going to happen to this country in the future. My right hon. Friend has not attempted to produce a single case: and why? He is an acute business man, and he knows that, if he produced a single case, it would be shattered to atoms by the arguments and facts that would be produced, to show that that particular case was not one which came within the ambit of the intentions of the Government. He speaks about the mass of unemployment which he hopes will be remedied, and the large interests which are going to be benefited. But the real overriding interest in all these matters is the great general public interest. Who is in support of this particular proposal of the great interests outside this House? We have in this House directly elected representatives of Labour, the very class whom he seeks to benefit. Is there a single one of them who has done other than criticise, in the most vigorous and hostile manner, the proposals of the Government? If they thought this was going to cure or help unemployment they would be the very first to back him, but they are all against him. Here they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] If you were to count the numbers of Members on both sides of the Committee who are really against this proposal listening to the arguments, the Government would be beaten. My right hon. Friend has the bravery to suggest that he is backed up by some high financial authority. I will refer to a document which I have quoted once before on this, very point. I suggest to him that the great bankers of the City of London are very good authorities. What do they say, with obvious reference to this Bill?
We have to build up the market that we need by encouraging Continental nations to export to us, for it is only by exports that they can re-establish their credit and pay their debt. In such a situation we believe that all expedients to control and hamper imports into this country, whether by licence, tariffs, or any other means, can
only retard improvement in the Continental exchanges, and prevent the national recovery of trade.
This very Clause must have been in their minds—this very proposal of the Government. These bankers are representative not of political opinion at all.

Sir A. MOND: They are not manufacturers. They are bankers.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Was there ever a greater giving away of a case? The bankers are as much interested in this question of exchange as any body of men in the whole country.

Sir A. MOND: They have not the same interest in keeping up the industry of this country. [Interruption.] They have not the same angle of view—let me put it that way.

Sir D. MACLEAN: A very remarkable interruption. What is the present position of bankers and manufacturers? Manufacturers are in the very greatest stress as to how they can retain their position with their bankers, how their undertakings can be financed by the bankers, and how their whole undertakings—thousands of them—are held together by the banks, and is it suggested to me that these bankers would not grasp at any means which would better the condition of their creditors and their customers if an opportunity is given them? They know these quack remedies, these appeals to interests which we cannot bring into the light of day. Take the whole range of business interests in the broadest and the widest sense. Take the Chambers of Commerce. How many of them are in favour of this proposal? I had sent me this morning a circular from the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce. I quite frankly admit that in some respects it supports the Bill, with some qualifications, but it says, with regard to this depreciation of exchange,
The Committee do not consider that the proposal to counteract the depreciation in exchange is practicable.
I claim that the great mass of financial and business opinion is against it, and, irrespective of party, there is a very small majority in the House really in favour of it As to the constant harping on Germany, there is an exclusion of countries with whom we have commercial relations. Let us see how we stand. I will take the question of brooms and brushes. They
are not food or drink or raw material, but purely manufactured articles. From what country is the largest import, according to the latest figures I can get? From Germany they are only £2,937, from the Netherlands £16,000, Belgium £27,000, France £76,000, Italy £22,000, and Japan, with whom we are concluding a treaty on commercial and other lines, £615,000—far more than all the other countries put together. What are you going to do with Japan under this? Sixpence an hour was quoted to-day. It will be about a farthing an hour in Japan.
The more you examine the details of the Government's proposal in relation to the actual facts of world trade, the more ridiculous and futile does this proposal become. What a machine is here set up; what a test you are going to apply. "Below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom." Here is a Committee going to get to work after having complaints—and they will have plenty of complaints. There will be no difficulty at all about that. The whole range of officialism will be in full swing investigating these complaints. First of all, there is the possibility, and, after that, can they be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom. Though the right hon. Gentleman tried to pass it off with a little genial chaff, the point is a very sound one. It is not whether the corresponding industry here is to be affected, but whether it is likely to be affected. What is it going to be in the end under the scope of the Amendment? A huge addition to officialdom. Let me point out what is the position now. Owing to the retention of certain import duties levied during the War, to solve the trade problem, I suppose, the cost of officials in the Customs and Excise has risen from £1,037,800 in 1915 to £6,737,000 in 1921. What chance is there of that huge expenditure coming down under the policy of the Government? Test this question any way you like, by the necessities of the situation, by the opposition of the great authorities of the country, by the opposition of the class which it is especially desired to assist, namely, the working people who are suffering from unemployment, and, finally, by the history and experience of our fiscal past, and this proposal is doomed.

Mr. REMER: The right Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) makes much about the attitude of the Government in ignoring resolutions passed by certain chambers of commerce in Glasgow and elsewhere; but he omitted to tell the Committee the constitution of those particular chambers of commerce. Perhaps he is ignorant of the fact that many of these chambers of commerce in some of the large ports are composed of importers of foreign manufactured goods, who do not provide any employment in this country; who grow very rich on small commissions and do not create any real wealth in the country. The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that the problem which we are discussing in this particular Amendment is not only an abnormal problem but ant entirely new problem. It is a problem that was never contemplated when the last General Election was fought; it was never contemplated in pre-War days, and it is a problem that must be faced. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not possible to find one trade affected by these collapsed exchanges.
I will mention one trade which is most seriously affected, and in regard to which there is no difference of opinion in the trade itself, and that is the silk trade The trade in my constituency is very seriously affected. Recently a deputation met the President of the Board of Trade, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, representing the Joint Industrial Council in the silk trade. On that deputation was the Labour Member of Parliament for the Leek Division (Mr. Bromfield) the leader of the Wee Free Liberal Association in Macclesfield, several other Liberals from the constituency, and several of my own supporters, all unanimously asking the President of the Board of Trade to bring forward a Bill dealing with the question of the collapsed exchanges. The Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department was present at the meeting. The manufactured silk goods that are coming in are goods not usually used by the poor, but are the luxury of the rich, and they come from countries with collapsed exchanges. [HON. MEMBERS: "France."] Yes, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, and other countries, and they cause the most untold distress. Factories are working only two days a week, and find it very difficult to maintain their work at that. Other works are finding it very difficult
to give employment to their people, and a great many are being turned away unemployed. What were the reasons given for this terrible state of affairs in the silk trade? It was that we were getting silk goods from these countries made by labour which, if you work it out on the rate of exchange, was actually paid 1d. per hour. I do not want the Labour Members to take my word for it. Let them ask their own colleague, the hon. Member for Leek, his views about the competition from the collapsed exchanges, and they will find that there is unity of opinion among all political parties that the silk trade must be protected.
10.0 P.M.
The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has been speaking about sound currency, and about giving Germany a fair chance of paying her reparation. Surely these things are beyond the operations of this country or of our Government? They are matters for the Governments of the countries concerned, and if they take steps which we think are foolish surely we should take steps to see that our workpeople are not thrown out of work through the maladministration of those countries? It has been stated that this Bill will have a tendency to raise prices. When prices get to an uneconomuc level, when they get to a figure at which it is obviously impossible, however enterprising, however up-to-date our machinery may be, or however low our wages may be, for the manufacturers of this country to compete, it is necessary that the prices should be raised from the uneconomic value which they have reached. Several hon. Members have spoken about employment in Germany. There is no doubt that employment in Germany is a great deal better at the present time than it is in this country, and when the workpeople of this country understand this Bill, as they are beginning to understand it, they will turn round to the people who are opposing the Bill, and will say: "We are going to see that our industry is safeguarded, that these collapsed exchanges are going to be dealt with, and that this new problem shall be dealt with on a basis which is satisfactory to the people of this country."

Sir R. THOMAS: If I remember rightly, my hon. Friend who has just sat down is a timber importer. May I ask
him whether he is prepared to extend this Bill to the timber trade? Of course he is not.

Mr. REMER: As far as the timber trade is concerned, I think there are certain classes of timber which should be protected.

Sir R. THOMAS: I presume my hon. Friend refers to the classes of timber in which he is not particularly interested?

Mr. REMER: I cannot allow that observation to pass. As a matter of fact, I am a timber importer to a certain extent, but my main business is that of manufacturing timber.

Sir R. THOMAS: He is "a timber importer to a certain extent." To that extent he does not propose to have a tariff on timber. He is quite prepared to have an import duty on silks in which he is not interested, and apparently that is the argument addressed to this House by all the Tariff Reformers on the other side. All I want to say is this, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. MacLean) has referred to the banker's appeal. As a business man that appeal has interested me considerably, and I do not think that too much importance can be placed upon it by Members of this House, because, after all, the whole business of this country, the whole trade of this country, is dependent upon the banking industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Does any hon. Member opposite suggest that a manufacturer or an exporter in this country is not dependent on credit from the banks of this country?

Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: The banks are the servants of trade.

Sir R. THOMAS: A servant very often knows more than his master. The banks are the servants of this country, and they know more about the business of this country than perhaps my hon. Friend opposite. They know the intricate machinery of the trade of this country. They make it their business, they have to make it their business, to find out about the trade policy of this country and how it operates in other countries, and when you have the banking community of this country, regardless of politics, offering an unsolicited opinion to the business community of this coun-
try to beware of Tariff Reform, I say it is time for this House to pause and give it due consideration.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: This is not Tariff Reform.

Sir R. THOMAS: Rubbish! On this question I am a Free Trader, and I am able to speak out my opinion clearly and unreservedly as a Free Trader, that this is the thin end of the wedge of full-fledged Protection in this country. Make no mistake about it, this is the beginning of Protection in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has started it in his Budget, it is developed now in this Bill, and it will go on and on. Different trades will be introduced, and my hon. Friend from Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) will soon come within its scope, and before long we shall be a full-fledged Protectionist country, and that will be the death-knell of the trade of this country. We have built up the reputation of this country on Free Trade. We won the War on Free Trade. [Laughter.] Oh, yes, we did. The finances of this country would never have stood only for the Free Trade policy of this country, say what you like. And I say that the policy for this country is this: Let the Government keep its hands off the trade of this country. That is what we want. As business men we want the Government and the officials connected with the various State Departments to keep their hands off business. We have had control, we have had decontrol, we have had control again, until we are mystified. We do not know where we are as business people. If only the Government and its satellites keep their hands off the business of this country, collapsed exchanges or no collapsed exchanges will have no effect. I got up to intervene for a few moments, but the enthusiasm of my friends here is carrying me away. I am afraid I am losing the thread of my argument, but I really got up to say this only, that if we are left alone as business people m this country we shall work out our own salvation. The collapsed exchanges on the Continent is a passing phase. It will pass. If capitalists in this country, if employers, will really consider that the labourers, the workpeople, the mechanics are part and parcel of the industry of this country, that they are dependent—

The CHAIRMAN: This is getting rather outside the question of the collapsed exchanges.

Sir R. THOMAS: I think the collapse of the Labour movement of this country has something to do with the collapsed exchanges. I think there is a great connection between the two, and I do submit it is quite relevant for me to refer to Capital and Labour in this matter. I say that the only hope for this country is cooperation, real co-operation, between Capital and Labour. If that is carried out the intelligence of this country, the inborn intuition of the Britisher in business, will overcome any deterrent in the way of collapsed exchanges on the Continent. If we do not collapse over here by fighting each other, we need not fear any collapse on the Continent.

Mr. JOHN MURRAY: I would like to return from the realm of prophecy represented by the speech to which we have just listened to the very brilliant speech of the Minister of Health. He made it quite plain that a great problem faces the business world through the depreciation of the exchange, and that therefore, in spite of all the bankers in the world, a great problem faces this House. He entered into some details regarding the international trade between Italy, France, and this country, and showed how serious was the effect of the change in the exchanges as compared with before the War. But the point he omitted, and the point that weighs with me, and must weigh with many Members of this House in giving or withholding their vote at 10.30, is this, the evils which he described are great and pressing and the methods, by which he proposes to meet them is this rather stale idea of 33⅓ per cent. It is 33⅓ per cent. for the key industries, and 33⅓ per cent. for the dumping; therefore it is 33⅓per cent, for the collapsed exchanges. I do not pretend any more than other hon. Members who have spoken to understand the question of the exchanges, but I think if the Minister of Health had shown a real proportion between the evils which he described and the method of cure proposed in the Bill, I should have been intelligent enough to understand that. I shall not keep the Committee, but I think that on behalf of the Government some attempt should be made to show even now that the great evils with which we
are faced are capable of being met or mitigated in any way whatsoever by this tax of 33⅓cent.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I desire to support the Amendment. In doing so I protest against the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade on the subject which we are discussing just now in the Second Reading Debate. He represented then that this is a branch of the general question of dumping, and that, therefore, it ought to be dealt with in the same way. In no sense is this competition, which we have got to face owing to the collapsed exchanges, the same thing as dumping. The Prime Minister originally, and even on this Bill, gave a broad and general definition of what was meant by dumping. We all know that dumping is the sending of goods here deliberately below the cost of production, not as a bonâ fide transaction, but for the purpose of ruining an industry here and then seizing control of it. This evil which we have got to face, where there is competition due to the collapse of exchanges, is the result of natural economic law. It is drastic in operation, but it is nature's own remedy, and we are dealing with a completely different symptom in the economic and commercial world, and I do protest against the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade in identifying the two subjects.
I protest against it all the more because I, and many of my colleagues, are pledged to support the Government in legislation against dumping, and the line which he took up indicated that this is a branch of dumping, and that we are bound by the pledge which we gave then to support the Government in its legislation on this subject. I am one of those who desire to adhere not merely in the letter, but in the spirit, to the pledge which we gave at the General Election to support the Government in legislation with regard both to key industries and dumping. But after I have given that pledge the Government have no right to say to me, "We shall not allow you to redeem that pledge unless you also accept something quite different." That is not fair to their supporters. It is not a bonâ fide transaction. It is a dangerous course for the Government to embark on. I am anxious to redeem all the pledges which I gave, but I deny the right of the Government to put me in the predicament that I shall
not redeem my pledge unless I accept something which is quite different and to which I am strongly opposed. I have voted throughout for all proposals with regard to key industries and dumping, but if the Government force me into that unfair position I shall be compelled to vote against the Bill as a whole when it comes up on its Third Reading.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the Minister of Health. He was not present during much of the Debate before he spoke and he is not present after, so that he will be able to vote for the Bill with a clear conscience, having heard nothing except his own arguments. The right hon. Gentleman always speaks with a real knowledge of many subjects. There was force in much of what he said. He confined himself to dealing with the evil which exists owing to the collapsed exchanges. There is a real evil, and commerce and labour are placed in a cruelly difficult position owing to this competition. There was one thing which was completely absent from his speech and absent from the speech of every Minister. No attempt was made to show that the policy contained in this Section of the Bill dealing with exchanges will provide any remedy whatever for the evil. I admit the necessity of finding some remedy, but I deny that this Bill provides a remedy. I assert that it aggravates the evil. Naturally, we shall be asked to put forward our remedy. This it not the place to do it, on this Amendment. I dealt with the subject at some length on the Financial Resolution. I am opposed to this provision, in the first place because I believe it will aggravate the evil; it will increase the difficulty of the exchanges. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) dealt, with great force and skill, with the position of German reparation. We all know that a very large factor in bringing about the collapse of the exchanges is the money owed to this country in the form of reparations, and in the form of loans from France, Belgium, and other Allies. This Bill will prevent the payment of this reparation and of these loans. To that extent it will aggravate the evil. It will do more than that; it will drive German trade into foreign markets in which at present it is not competing with us to the same extent. The President of the Board of Trade said
that the world's markets are open to Germany. Of course they are. That is just the point. The trade which we shut out here will be driven, as water finds its own level, on to these markets abroad, and we shall be faced with competition in markets in which we are not faced with it now. More than that. This Measure will protect the foreign manufacturer and the foreign competitor in the British home market at the expense of the British consumer. In all those countries in which the exchange has not collapsed, in which it at par or above par, the foreign manufacturer or producer of raw material will be protetcted in our home markets to the extent of 33⅓ per cent. That will be paid by the British taxpayer.
I have not heard any of these arguments dealt with by speakers on the Front Bench. The vast majority of the trading and financial interests of this country are seriously alarmed at the provisions of this Bill. Two examples have been mentioned. There is the remarkable manifesto on the financial side of the question published by the bankers, who, at least, know something about the exchanges. It is said the bankers' outlook is confined to one aspect of the subject and that they are not manufacturers. We have, however, the equally important declaration from the great chambers of commerce. It has been said they represent only importers. Is there any city more representative of the manufacturing and producing classes of this country than the city of Glasgow? It is one of the greatest manufacturing districts of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "And importing!"] There is not a part of the country that is not interested in importing, but the manufacturing interest is a great and powerful interest in Glasgow, and its Chamber of Commerce and Manufacturers, having circularised all its members, has unanimously condemned this proposal in this Bill and supported the other two—as I am doing, and as I have done all along. They believe that this particular pro-

Division No. 207.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Beckett, Hon. Gervase


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bellairs, Commander Carlvon W.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish


Atkey, A. R.
Barlow, Sir Montague
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Barnston, Major Harry
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

posal will not achieve the object for which it is designed and will inflict new and lasting injury on this country. What is it these traders are interested in? They know that the great and vital interest of this country is the foreign market. It is the foreign market by which we earn the profits which maintain the vast industrial population of this country, and not the home market. This proposal is designed to benefit the small home market at the expense of the vast foreign market.

Captain ELLIOT: There are only two minutes left for me in which to point out that the only example the Minister of Health gave in support of this Bill was the astounding fact that sulphate of copper had been exported from Italy to France, and, apparently, he thought he was able to deal with this financial transaction by putting a duty of 33⅓ per cent. on stocks coming into this country. That is a specimen of the arguments used on behalf of this proposal, and it is because of the arguments used in favour of it that I intend to vote against it.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I rise to ask the Government one question. The collapsed exchanges vary in extent. The German exchange has collapsed ten times and the French exchange only barely twice. How is this proposal to apply both to the German exchange and the French exchange? I understand the Spanish Government have recently dealt with this problem, and they have adopted a really scientific method by instituting a sort of sliding scale. I wish to ask if the Government have considered the plan adopted by the Spanish Government?

It being half-past Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 13th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from, the Chair.

Question put, "That the words 'or (b) at prices which, by reason of depreciation' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 90.

Blades, Sir George Rowland
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Perring, William George


Borwick, Major G. O.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pratt, John William


Breese, Major Charles E.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Brown, Major D. C.
Hood, Joseph
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn.W.)
Reid, D. D.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Remer, J. R.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Remnant, Sir James


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Hurd, Percy A.
Renwick, Sir George


Carr, W. Theodore
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Casey, T. W.
Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Kidd, James
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Coats, Sir Stuart
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lane-Fox. G. R.
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Cope, Major William
Lindsay, William Arthur
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Lloyd, George Butler
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Stewart, Gershom


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lort-Williams, J.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dean, Commander P. T.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sugden, W. H.


Denniss. Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Sutherland, Sir William


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Fildes, Henry
Magnus, Sir Philip
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Townley, Maximilian G


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mason, Robert
Tryon, Major George Clement


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Matthews, David
Walters, Rt. Hon. sir John Tudor


Ganzoni, Sir John
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Gee, Captain Robert
Mitchell, William Lane
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Glanville, Harold James
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Waring, Major Waiter


Gould, James C.
Morrison, Hugh
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Grant, James Augustus
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Greer, Harry
Nail, Major Joseph
Winterton, Earl


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Neal, Arthur
Wise, Frederick


Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wolmer, Viscount


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Woolcock, William James U.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike



Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




McCurdy.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Galbraith, Samuel
Lunn, William


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Gillis, William
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Glanville, Harold James
Mallalieu, Frederick William


Armitage, Robert
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mills, John Edmund


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grundy, T. W.
Morgan, Major D. Watts


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Halls, Walter
Myers, Thomas


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayward, Evan
O'Grady, James


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hinds, John
Rae, H. Norman


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Cairns, John
Holmes, J. Stanley
Rendall, Athelstan


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Davies, A (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Johnstone, Joseph
Rodger, A. K.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rose, Frank H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Royce, William Stapleton


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kenyon, Barnet
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Kiley, James Daniel
Sexton, James


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lawson, John James
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)




Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Tootill, Robert
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Wallace, J.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Swan, J. E.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Wintringham, Thomas


Taylor, J.
Waterson, A. E.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Wignall, James



Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr.




Neil Maclean.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.

Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (1, b), after the word "manufactured," insert the words "not being a country within his Majesty's Dominions."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed: At the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words
Provided that the Board shall not so refer any matter involving a question of depreciation of currency unless they are satisfied that the value of the currency of the-country in question in relation to sterling is less by thirty-three and one-third per cent., or upwards, than the par value of exchange."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: Major Mackenzie Wood—

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Division No. 208.]
AYES.
[10.45 p.m.


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Brown, Major D. C.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Evans, Ernest


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Casey, T. W.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Atkey, A. R.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Ganzoni, Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Coats, Sir Stuart
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grant, James Augustus


Barlow, Sir Montague
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)


Barnston, Major Harry
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cope, Major William
Greer, Harry


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Gregory, Holman


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Greig, Colonel Sir James William


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Gretton, Colonel John


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Dean, Commander P. T.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

The CHAIRMAN: Under the Order of the House I am obliged to put this question immediately, and there can be no debate upon it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Under normal conditions, we are entitled to carry on the Debate until 11 o'clock, but if it be clear in the Order of the House, then I bow to your decision.

Captain BENN: The words of the guillotine Motion provide that a Motion to Report Progress may not be made by any private Member, but only by the Government. That leaves the matter open.

The CHAIRMAN: I will read the passage dealing with this point—
On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to recommit the Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, or that further consideration of the Bill or any Debate be now adjourned shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 73.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Mitchell, William Lane
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Morrison, Hugh
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Hood, Joseph
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Stewart, Gershom


Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Sturrock, J. Leng


Hopkins, John W. W.
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Sugden, W. H.


Hurd, Percy A.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Nail, Major Joseph
Sutherland, Sir William


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Neal, Arthur
Taylor, J.


Jephcott, A. R.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Frederick George
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Kidd, James
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Perring, William George
Tryon, Major George Clement


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Lewis. Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Pratt, John William
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Lewis, T. A. (Glarn., Pontypridd)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Lindsay, William Arthur
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Lloyd, George Butler
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Waring, Major Walter


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Reid, D. D.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Remer, J. R.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Lort-Williams, J.
Remnant, Sir James
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Renwick, Sir George
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Winterton, Earl


Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wise, Frederick


McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Wolmer, Viscount


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Rodger, A. K.
Woolcock, William James U.


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Roundel), Colonel R. F.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)



Manville, Edward
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Mason, Robert
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
McCurdy.


Matthews, David
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hirst, G. H.
Rose, Frank H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Royce, William Stapleton


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Johnstone, Joseph
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Swan, J. E.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Briant, Frank
Kiley, James Daniel
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cairns, John
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Mills, John Edmund
Wignall, James


Entwistle, Major C F.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Gillis, William
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Glanville, Harold James
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Grundy, T. W.
O'Grady, James
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Rae, H. Norman
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Halls, Walter
Rendall, Athelstan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. G.


Hayward, Evan
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Thorne.


Hinds, John
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

OVERSEAS TRADE (CREDITS AND INSURANCE) AMENDMENT BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I do not know if the Government will take the Third Reading, with only five minutes to spare? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] In any case, I mean to
make one or two very brief remarks upon it. Hon. Members will recollect that this Bill was taken through its Second Reading with very little Debate late at night. It has been upstairs to a Committee, and, I understand, has received very little Amendment. It is now brought down for Third Reading. Since the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on the Second Reading—

Mr. SPEAKER: I find that the Bill originated in Committee of the Whole House, and that, therefore, the Third Reading will have to be put down for another day.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

GUARDIANSHIP, ETC., OF INFANTS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Repeal of the Act of 1886.)

The Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886, is hereby repealed.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
This Clause says, "The Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886, is hereby repealed." I want to know what is the use of repealing the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886. I was not aware that this Bill was coming on now, and have not provided myself with a copy of the Act of 1886.

Colonel Sir J. GREIG: Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will permit me to give him the explanation, which, I am sure, will commend itself to him. The only reason why that Act is repealed is in order that the charge may not be brought against this Bill that it is a piece of Chinese legislation. The Act of 1886 is repealed simply in order that it may be re-enacted, as the right hon. Baronet will find, by a subsequent Section of the Bill, with a few short additional Clauses making the necessary alterations in the Act of 1886. If the Bill had proceeded in the usual way, it would have been brought in in a couple of Clauses and adjusted into the existing Act; and it would then have been said that it was unintelligible, and could not be read by anyone of ordinary intelligence. In order to meet that objec-
tion we have repealed the Act, and re-enacted it in subsequent Clauses with the alterations that we desired to make.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think that that explanation, so far as I understand it, justifies our departing from the ordinary custom of the House, and following the customs of the Chinese—if there be a Chinese House of Commons. Unless I am very much mistaken, in China they do not write from left to right, but from right to left; and, as I understand what we are going to do, it is not beginning by introducing legislation in the ordinary way, by reference—

It being Eleven of the Clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES, BRISTOL.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Mr. INSKIP: I desire to raise a question of which I have given notice with reference to the rates of wages being paid in connection with the Bristol employment exchanges, and I have no doubt other labour exchanges also. I have no criticism whatever to make of the way in which the persons concerned conduct their duties. They conduct them in an admirable way and with a view to the public interest, and they are devoted in their service to the public. But that is no justification for the extraordinary application of what is called the war bonus scheme under the Whitley Council connected with the Civil Service. I am informed on the authority of the Minister of Labour that young women who enter the employment exchanges, whose qualifications are required to have clerical ability together with aptitude to deal promptly and courteously with miscellaneous inquiries, are paid, up to the age of 18, a salary of £138; from 18 to 19, £199; and when they reach 19, still possessing the qualifications I have mentioned, £212 per annum. May I compare this with something which will
enable the House to estimate the value of the services these young women perform in comparison with that of much more highly qualified persons? I take one illustration out of many. A certificated mistress in an ordinary elementary school, after spending a considerable sum upon her training, passing two to three years in a training college, under the Burnham scale receives about £170 a year, and continues at that salary for some considerable time. The girl clerks I have mentioned are permanent clerks of the Civil Service, enjoying all the advantages of permanent employment. They carry out the ordinary duties with zeal, devotion, and ability, so far as they require those qualities, and they receive, as I think, the extravagant sum of £212 per year. They have neither homes nor families to maintain, having regard to the age at which they are employed, and they receive a much larger salary than any women in any other employment that could be mentioned. I call attention to this, not with a view to reducing the salaries of the girl clerks, in the Employment Exchanges. I recognise that they are carrying out their services well, and they are working probably long hours; but I want to call attention to the almost ridiculous way in which the war bonus scheme of the Whitley Council in the Civil Service works. A war bonus was intended to be an addition to salaries which were fixed before or during the increase in the cost of living due to the War. It was given to put these salaries on a scale commensurate with the cost of living and to put them in the same relation with the cost of living as the pre-War salaries were. These young women were engaged two years after the War and yet by the addition of what is called a war bonus their salaries are increased, in the case of those who are 19 years of age, by no less than £132 a year upon what is called a salary of £80 a year. Probably this is the only opportunity there will be before the close of the Session for calling attention to the operation of this scheme. Whether or not it has been wise in the interests of the Civil Service I make no question to-night. I do not want to go back upon the past—but separating as we are about to do in a comparatively short time I do suggest that the Government ought to cut off the further operation of their scheme with regard to persons engaged
from this time forward, and to direct that salaries shall be fixed with regard to the services performed, the age and qualification of the persons concerned, and with regard generally to a permanent engagement at a rate of salary appropriate to the duties performed, and that the almost ridiculous operation of the so-called war bonus shall cease in order that we may know where we are. We are continually told that the salaries of this and that official are so much, with war bonus. It leaves us in a doubt, it introduces difficulty and uncertainty when there ought to be clarity and certainty, as to the salaries that are paid.
I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister for Labour will not think for a moment that I am making any criticism of the labour exchanges. I believe them to be an essential part of our industrial system. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Some hon. Members differ from me. I make no attack on the labour exchanges or on the officials. What I do attack is this rule-of-thumb method, contrary to common sense, of giving war bonus on salaries which have been fixed two years after the close of the War, which was supposed to have led to the giving of the bonus. My right hon. Friend may say that he is not in a position to give any decision which would bind the whole of the Government departments. I recognise that, but I do hope that the position in regard to the labour exchanges for which he is responsible will lead him to make an intimation in the proper quarter of what I think is the sense of the House upon this question, and that it will perhaps lead to some arrangement which will make it impossible for such anomalies to continue in the future.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): My hon and learned Friend has performed an urgently necessary public duty in scrutinising with the closest care the public expenditure of the country. It is absolutely necessary that there should be strict economy if we are not to become bankrupt, and so far as I am concerned I am urging that every day of my life. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend spoke so kindly and so sympathetically of the work of the employment exchanges in the city which he represents. That city has been hit very hard during the last ten months with over-
whelming unemployment and the staff that we have there—which he does not criticise and therefore I am absolved from going into that matter—has had a very hard time. I cannot speak too highly of the patience, the devotion, and the consideration which day by day these girls display in meeting the requests and the inquiries of the people who are cast upon these hard times. I have been in the Bristol Employment Exchanges and have seen the work they do, sometimes in premises thoroughly ill-adapted for the work, and I have been surprised at the way they do the work. While thanking my hon. Friend for his testimony, I take this opportunity of paying my tribute to as loyal public service as any public man has ever had. The permanent wages of the girls are £52 and £75. and to that respectively is added £85 16s. in the one case and £123 15s. in the other, War bonus. These are fixed by the National Whitley Council and the Treasury. They are not peculiar, as my hon. Friend knows, to the Employment Exchange Service; they are applicable to the whole of the Civil Service. They will be faced by reason of the fall in the cost of living by a very substantial reduction, as from 1st September. I think I am right in saying that, in reply to a question to-day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he would take an early opportunity of making a statement in regard to the whole question of the Civil Service bonus.
We have in Bristol 179 persons engaged at work upon a total registration of wholly unemployed persons of 24,000, and there are, over and above that, 16,000 on short time, and we have in the Britol City area 147,000 insured persons under the National Health Insurance Act. Of these 179, 118 are on the casual basis, in order that I may adapt my staff with the greatest expedition to the precise needs which I have to meet. I stood in the Drill Hall in Old Market Street one Saturday in the early part of last year and saw these girls giving out broken amounts of money for broken periods of time to scores and scores of women, and I have to say now that I went away very glad indeed that during this trying period in one of our great cities we have a staff prepared to give such sterling services in the way that they are doing in
Bristol. But that is not the issue between myself and my hon. Friend; it is the question of the war bonus, which, as I say, is a Treasury scheme applicable to the whole Civil Service that will have to face a substantial reduction on 1st September, and concerning which, as I gather, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated to-day that he will take an early opportunity of making a statement.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I do want to say one word in regard to the comment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip), when he says that, as far as he is concerned, the different staffs are doing their job properly. Although this does not concern Bristol, it is as well to give some instances that come before one's notice. One is the Borough Employment Exchange, in the Walworth Road, where a girl, 15 years of age, persistently asked if she could be given a job in domestic service. She was told by whoever dealt with her case words to this effect: "What, a nice girl like you wanting to go into service? You are too good for that. We will find you something much beetter." She went away, and when she returned she was told the same thing. A friend of hers, 16 years of age, who had the same wish, was told the same thing, and they were both denied any possibility of employment, and were compelled to draw out-of-work pay. That was some time ago. The exact date was the 29th March. At the Kensington branch, in Queen's Gate, last week, or the week before, an inquiry was made by telephone for a general servant. The wages offered were £40, to live in. All the satisfaction that could be got on the telephone was, that there were no maids available, and they could not fill the vacancy. I give these two examples out of many of which I have heard. They may well be quoted in this connection. I presume the staffs in these two places draw wages on the same scale as those mentioned by my hon. Friend. When further Estimates in connection with these exchanges come up, the House must make up its mind as to whether, in the national interest, it ought to continue Departments which pay the. extravagant salaries referred to, and which do the work in the manner indicated by the two instances I have just quoted.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I am sorry the hon. Member did not give us the details which he has just quoted earlier. If he will give them now we shall be happy to go into them. One of the dates which he, has mentioned is the 29th March, which is some time ago. If he can let us have the details of any case inquiry will be made promptly, and if he will let us have the details now we shall have inquiry made at once.

Mr. ATKEY: In view of the statement that 118 of those employés at Bristol are more or less casual and subject to short notice and that some of them are receiving salary and war bonus amounting approximately to £200 a year. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot see his way to give a preference in casual employment to some of the large numbers of men who would be very glad indeed, in existing circumstances, to take advantage of employment of that character—men who have far heavier responsibilities, in many cases having to maintain wives and families, while many of these females are probably single.

Captain LOSEBY: In view of the attack of the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) on the War bonus scheme of the Civil Service generally, and also in view of the statement of the Minister of
Labour that the system was coming under review at an early date, I take the opportunity of challenging the opinion expressed as to the advisability of the War bonus scheme, and most sincerely hope that the Government will not accept the view of the hon. and learned Member as expressing the opinion of this House, because I am utterly unable to see how the Government could devise a scheme which would at the same time be economic, and provide anything in the nature of justice or ensure a reliable and fair economic wage, under any other system. At the present time it would be the greatest folly to fix a definite wage. It would be entirely uneconomic. No one in this country can say what the cost of living will be in one, two, or three years, and the Government took the line that in the Civil Service generally the wages paid were more or less fair in 1914; and if they act upon that basis, that the rise and fall of wages should vary with the rise and fall in the cost of living it is the only possible way of dealing with it. I have always felt strongly on this question of sliding scale. I have always felt it was economic, and I feel now that the Government would most certainly lose if it endeavoured, with a fluctuating cost of living, to arrange anything in the nature of fixed salaries.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Eleven o'clock.